• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 815
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
So, I read through the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, and to a certain degree I think I understand them. I'm still hung up on this concept:




Why not just have



This is certainly permissible by the axiom of pairing.

Now, I'm probably just demonstrating how little I understand, but what is the meaning of the having 3 = {1,2}?


I was thinking their method must lend themselves to proving arithmetic. So, lets see:


which is still just 3.


Let's try this:

what do we know about this set?

[ March 31, 2005: Message edited by: Nick George ]
 
Nick George
Ranch Hand
Posts: 815
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I guess one benefit is that one could prove the existance of all the numbers inductively, i.e.,



but that doesn't seem especially exciting.
[ April 01, 2005: Message edited by: Nick George ]
 
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Nick George:

I guess one benefit is that one could prove the existance of all the numbers inductively ... but that doesn't seem especially exciting.

That's probably because they made the mistake of teaching you arithmetic first, so you take it for granted. I think the idea behind "new math", back in the 1960s, was that Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory would be taught before arithmetic, since it was more fundamental. Then arithmetic would seem like something new and wonderful when the little four year olds derived it from set theory.

Unfortunately for me, new math didn't hit until I was in grade school, so I had the same reaction that you did. Thirty years later, I've rejected the axiom of choice as well.
 
Nick George
Ranch Hand
Posts: 815
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
but, what I'm wondering is, can one prove that 2 + 3 = 5 using this theory?


I read the article on the Axiom of Choice a few times, but I'm still a little fuzzy on it, I'm working on it.
 
Not looking good. I think this might be the end. Wait! Is that a tiny ad?
a bit of art, as a gift, that will fit in a stocking
https://gardener-gift.com
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic