151–160 of 162 posts
Just a note from your friendly philosophy degree holder: Axioms are arbitrary. Use the axioms that are the most useful.
You can’t axiom your way out of 1 apple and 1 apple being 2 apples together. So axioms are not really that arbitrary.
Just a note from your friendly philosophy degree holder: Axioms are arbitrary. Use the axioms that are the most useful.
You can’t axiom your way out of 1 apple and 1 apple being 2 apples together. So axioms are not really that arbitrary.
People "axiom" their way out of 1+1=2 in this way: by changing the axioms, they change the topic, so they change the conclusion. I observe this pattern in disagreements very often.
Some other definition fun: Should we define 0 both positive and negative, or neither positive and negative? Does monotonically increasing mean x f(y) f(x)≤f(y)? Should we deny the law of excluded middle and use constructive math? Does infinity exist? If infinity exists, is it actual (as an object) or potential (as a function)? Is the axiom of choice true? Or, is the axiom of determinacy true? Should we use a space-ti…
Just a note from your friendly philosophy degree holder: Axioms are arbitrary. Use the axioms that are the most useful.
While axioms are in some sense arbitrary, it is helpful if they are consistent (informally: you can't prove something that "is false"; formally: you can't prove p and not p). Also other people like it if your axioms feel obvious.
If you really want to go down the road of solipsism, read Karl Popper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don’t allow the empty set to be a set then you break the basic operations of set theory. For example, to show two sets are disjoint you compare their intersection with the empty set. You certainly can do that, but it's not the only way. Even in this universe, I would expect to show that concrete sets A and B are disjoint by showing x ∈ A → x ∉ B, which makes perfect sense even without an empty set. > In an a…
Rather, in this alternate universe, intersection is partially defined. Yes, but then topology becomes a very tedious exercise because so many proofs rely on the fact that the empty set is contained in every topology, that the empty set is both closed and open, and that intersections frequently yield the empty set. With partially defined intersection you're forced to specially handle every case where two sets might be…
Certainly this would be a good objection if I proposed to get rid of empty sets in our universe. (I don't!) But an alternate universe that developed this way would have either just accepted that topology was an inherently ugly subject, or worked out some equivalent workaround (for example, with testing topologies by {0, 1}-valued functions, of which we can take maxima and minima to simulate unions and intersections without worrying about the possibility of an intersection being empty), or else come up with some other approach entirely. (There is, after all, nothing sacred about a topology being specified by its open sets; see the discussion at https://mathoverflow.net/questions/19152/why-is-a-topology-m.... That's how history shook out for us, but it's hardly an inevitable concept except for those of us who have already learned to think about things that way.)
I am not claiming that this would be an improvement (my suspicion is that it would be an improvement in some ways and a regression in others), just that I think that it is not unimaginable that history could have developed this way. It would not then have seemed that the definitions and theorems were artificially avoiding the concept of an empty set, because the mathematical thought of the humans who make those definitions and theorems would simply not think of the empty set as a thing, and so would naturally have taken what seem to us like circuitous tours around it. Just as, surely, there are circuitous tours that we take in our universe, that could be made more direct if we only phrased our reasoning in terms of ... well, who knows? If I knew, then that's the math that I'd be doing, and indeed I see much of the research I do as attempting to discover the "right" direct path to the conclusion, whether or not it's the approach that fits in best with the prevailing thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t axiom your way out of 1 apple and 1 apple being 2 apples together. So axioms are not really that arbitrary.
You implicitly used an axiom to ignore the differences between the apples. Someone else could use different axioms to talk about the sizes of the apples (1 large + 1 small = ?), or the color of the apples (1 red + 1 green = ?), or the taste of the apples (1 sweet + 1 sour = ?). People "axiom" their way out of 1+1=2 in this way: by changing the axioms, they change the topic, so they change the conclusion. I observe th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can’t axiom your way out of 1 apple and 1 apple being 2 apples together. So axioms are not really that arbitrary.
They are, by definition. The reason why we choose them is exactly to map a deductive framework onto an inductive reality.
Just a note from your friendly philosophy degree holder: Axioms are arbitrary. Use the axioms that are the most useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather, in this alternate universe, intersection is partially defined. Yes, but then topology becomes a very tedious exercise because so many proofs rely on the fact that the empty set is contained in every topology, that the empty set is both closed and open, and that intersections frequently yield the empty set. With partially defined intersection you're forced to specially handle every case where two sets might be…
> Yes, but then topology becomes a very tedious exercise because so many proofs rely on the fact that the empty set is contained in every topology, that the empty set is both closed and open, and that intersections frequently yield the empty set. With partially defined intersection you're forced to specially handle every case where two sets might be disjoint. Certainly this would be a good objection if I proposed to…
I know that at one time we did mathematics without the number zero and that its introduction was a profound (and controversial) change. The empty set seems like a perfectly natural extension of zero as a concept. Perhaps the universe with no empty set also has no zero? Would be very interesting to see how mathematics would develop without either construct.