ToeQuest

We're going on a TOE Quest!


Register

Reply

Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,025
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-10-2005, 03:20 PM
what is mathematical truth?

The discoveries of non-Euclidean geometries were the results of questions concerning the axiomatic bases of mathematics. Similar to religious faiths, the truthfulness of axioms and postulates are founded on mathematical faiths without logical proofs.

But by using these axioms as mathematical truths, all mathematical theorems can be provided with more than enough logical proofs, to which practical experiences and physical measurements can never be able to provide with absolute certainty.

Therefore, like religions, mathematics is also based on faith.

Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-29-2005, 06:08 PM
There is another thread I can't remember where, that you started, and I have replied, and it is about this.

Anyway, just to let you know, there is a part of math which is dedicated to make the opposite of what is ussually done, by this, I mean, that mathematicians get the theorems that they develop, unify them by finding axioms or statements that work for all. This is called axiomatization, and was tried by Hilbert's program, which failed due to godel's incompleteness theorems.
(I got knowledge of this information yesterday, whiles reading "Fermat's Enigma", great book). So, axioms aren't exactly believes. They are derived by logic.
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,025
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-30-2005, 06:22 PM
Godel asserted that logic cannot prove logic. Axiom are not proven by logic but accepted as truth by mathematical faith. Theorems are proven by using logic based on the axioms.
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-31-2005, 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
Godel asserted that logic cannot prove logic. Axiom are not proven by logic but accepted as truth by mathematical faith. Theorems are proven by using logic based on the axioms.
But there is an inverce method, from theorems to axioms, quote from Wikipedia: Mathematics; Notation, Language and Rigor:

"Even so, in the past it sometimes happened that something which had supposedly been proved turned out to be false. This was possible because mathematics was done using natural language. To prevent this from happening, mathematicians wanted their theorems to follow mechanically from a few simple incontrovertible truths and for this they invented axioms and axiomatic reasoning. An axiom is just a string of symbols which have an intrinsic meaning because of all derivable formulas. It was the goal of Hilbert's program to put all of mathematics on a firm axiomatic basis, but according to Gödel's incompleteness theorem every (strong enough) axiom system has undecidable formulas so a final axiomatization of mathematics is unavailable. Nonetheless mathematics is often imagined to be nothing but set theory in some axiomatization, in the sense that every mathematical statement or proof could be cast into formulas within set theory. But for most of mathematics this complete rigor is far too cumbersome and mathematical language and notation are supposed to suffice."
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,025
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
08-01-2005, 08:46 PM
the distinction is between the arguments among the formalists and intuitionists. In this respect, I am considering myself an intuitionist.
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
08-01-2005, 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
the distinction is between the arguments among the formalists and intuitionists. In this respect, I am considering myself an intuitionist.
Which (formalism or intuitionism) aproves the axiom to theorem or the theorem to axiom?
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,025
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
08-01-2005, 09:14 PM
maybe this site gives some ideas
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntuitionisticLogic.html
Russell might be an example of a formalist.
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
08-02-2005, 09:43 PM
Thanks.

Now, what if:

There are logical proofs for the fundamental axioms of mathematics?
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,025
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
08-02-2005, 10:16 PM
GUILLE,

I thought Russell was a formalist. I was wrong. He was the founder of the logic school of mathematics. Your adhenrence to logic makes you a Russell's devotee.
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
The Thinker

Guille's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,278
Blog Entries: 7
48 Guille is a jewel in the rough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
08-03-2005, 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
GUILLE,

I thought Russell was a formalist. I was wrong. He was the founder of the logic school of mathematics. Your adhenrence to logic makes you a Russell's devotee.
Of course! I love the work of Bertrand Arthur William Rusell (1872-1970). I am reading: The Auto-Biography of Bertrand Russell (by himself (auto)). It's devided in 3 books, it's incredible. He is trully my favourite character in philosophy, a brilliant logician and a poore husband (in the book he has married so many times already, that I lost the count). But my philosophy is quite different to his, and I beleive that logic isn't good enough, not like him. Just for pleasure, I give here the logical form of Rusell's paradox, which I'm still, after 6 months, trying to solve without the theory of types being used or needed:

A/€A<-->A€R

R={A|A/€A}

R€R<-->R/€R

KEY: €: contians, /€: doens't contian, <-->: iff and only iff.
Reply With Quote
Guille is offlineReport Post
Reply

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
will the truth set me free?prehaps. mkirkpatrick Profound Thoughts 14 08-11-2006 08:26 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 PM. Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 VBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys.