Loser66
  • Loser66
I don't understand the so-called "Axiomatic method." I need a super patient helper to help me out. Please, explain me.
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
Loser66
  • Loser66
1 Attachment
Loser66
  • Loser66
@jim_thompson5910
anonymous
  • anonymous
What, in particular, do you have trouble understanding?

Looking for something else?

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

More answers

Loser66
  • Loser66
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?
anonymous
  • anonymous
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.
Loser66
  • Loser66
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?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes, precisely. The axioms are the rules to the game. What outcomes come out of the game are entirely constrained by the axioms.
Loser66
  • Loser66
in example 1.2.6. I don't understand the way they define {P,Q} <---> z How?
anonymous
  • anonymous
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.
anonymous
  • anonymous
I must say I didn't really read everything and I'm just going off my gut.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Whatever it may be, it follows from the relations they have established for Fe's and Fo's
Loser66
  • Loser66
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?
Loser66
  • Loser66
That is the reason why I don't understand the way they interpret the method. :)
Loser66
  • Loser66
Thanks a ton for being here to help me out. I feel better now.
anonymous
  • anonymous
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.
Loser66
  • Loser66
What kind of analysis? I am taking complex analysis this semester.
Loser66
  • Loser66
What kind of algebra?
anonymous
  • anonymous
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.
Loser66
  • Loser66
hehehe. good luck. I took both them last year.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Thanks, good luck to you as well.

Looking for something else?

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