3 ms·
"The axioms don't have to be true." No, not at all. Axioms are better thought of as universally accepted truths which everything else depends on. https://en.wi
by bachback 11y ago
"The axioms don't have to be true."
No, not at all. Axioms are better thought of as universally accepted truths which everything else depends on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_atomism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_atomism
- thomasahle 11y ago"Axioms are better thought of as universally accepted truths" Not really universally accepted. You just have to specify which set of axioms you are using. Different problems may call for different axioms. Like if you want to prove theorems about the security of some computer system, you'll define a set of axioms that allow proving interesting results for that purpose. If you want to prove theorems about sets, you'll want to specify what set axioms you are using. You may even try to specify interesting minimal sets of axioms that make your theorem true. There is no reason to use the same axioms for everything, or to assume they are True in some teological sense.
- golergka 11y agoAcioms are only viewed as true because they are defined as such. It's obvious when applying math to real world. If you're talking about objects on Earth surface, for example, at first Euclid's geometry will get you good results, because objects you're working with can be assumed to fulfill it's axioms. However, when your scale gets bigger, you'll have apply a more complicated geometry apparatus. Easiest analogy about axioms is interface in software engineering: you don't care what the object really is, but as long as it shows certain properties, you can prove theorems about it. Which will be true for any objects with these properties, and as true as exactly these properties are fulfilled by the real life object.