A community for students.

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

Loser66

  • one year ago

I don't understand the so-called "Axiomatic method." I need a super patient helper to help me out. Please, explain me.

  • This Question is Closed
  1. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    1 Attachment
  2. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @jim_thompson5910

  3. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    What, in particular, do you have trouble understanding?

  4. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Yes, the way they interpret the method is nonsense to me. By definition (table 1.2.1), they said "Any axiomatic system contains a set of statements ....(3)....These are the axioms of the system." My question: if they are axioms, they must be correct, right?

  5. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Yeah, but they are only assumed to be true. A good example could be Classical Geometry. Euclid formulated geometry primarily relying on 4 axioms. The rest of his geometrical frame work then relied on a fifth axiom, the so-called parallel line postulate which essentially supposes that given a line and a point not on this line, then there is exactly 1 line that passes through this point, which doesn't meet the given line. However, the parallel line postulate can be modified to yield different geometries like hyperbolic geometry( more than 1 line which passes through the point and is parallel to the original line) and spherical geometry( no line that passes through the point and is parallel to the original line). So, what axioms we assume to be true, can radically alter our deductions and the results that follow.

  6. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    So, they give us the axioms (kind of given information, right?) and then 1 statement like theorem or corollary, We have to prove or disprove the theorem base on the given axioms, right?

  7. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Yes, precisely. The axioms are the rules to the game. What outcomes come out of the game are entirely constrained by the axioms.

  8. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    in example 1.2.6. I don't understand the way they define {P,Q} <---> z How?

  9. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Seems as though they are just making a map between the {P,Q,R} and {x,y,z}. They made the decision arbitrarily to show that its not an isomorphism.

  10. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I must say I didn't really read everything and I'm just going off my gut.

  11. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Whatever it may be, it follows from the relations they have established for Fe's and Fo's

  12. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Why do they do that? They tried to prove that the example 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 is not an isomorphism, right? Is it not that it is trivial? In 1.2.5, only 3 relationships are constructed while there are 6 of them in 1.2.6. They are not isomorphism at the first look. right?

  13. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    That is the reason why I don't understand the way they interpret the method. :)

  14. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Thanks a ton for being here to help me out. I feel better now.

  15. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    No problem, I'm actually studying the same sort of topic (Algebra and Analysis) for this semester. I have to get off now, but perhaps I may get on later and look further into your text.

  16. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    What kind of analysis? I am taking complex analysis this semester.

  17. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    What kind of algebra?

  18. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Well, its really a "pre-Analysis" course, here its called advanced calculus. The algebra course is entitled abstract algebra, both are standard upper level undergraduate courses for those pursuing mathematics.

  19. Loser66
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    hehehe. good luck. I took both them last year.

  20. anonymous
    • one year ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Thanks, good luck to you as well.

  21. Not the answer you are looking for?
    Search for more explanations.

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Sign Up
Find more explanations on OpenStudy
Privacy Policy

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...

23

  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.