I'm not a mathematical logic student so my question can be naïve. I'm thinking if we identify $\Bbb{E}^2$ with $\Bbb{R}^2$( as a normed space with the Euclidean norm), Then can we prove all Euclidean axioms (Hilbert's axioms) by the axioms of the real number system? If so what does it say about the completeness of the real analysis?
2026-04-01 14:03:50.1775052230
Can axioms of the Euclidean space be proven in the Real space?
158 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in SOFT-QUESTION
- Reciprocal-totient function, in term of the totient function?
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- Does approximation usually exclude equality?
- Transition from theory of PDEs to applied analysis and industrial problems and models with PDEs
- Online resources for networking and creating new mathematical collaborations
- Random variables in integrals, how to analyze?
- Could anyone give an **example** that a problem that can be solved by creating a new group?
- How do you prevent being lead astray when you're working on a problem that takes months/years?
- Is it impossible to grasp Multivariable Calculus with poor prerequisite from Single variable calculus?
- A definite integral of a rational function: How can this be transformed from trivial to obvious by a change in viewpoint?
Related Questions in MODEL-THEORY
- What is the definition of 'constructible group'?
- Translate into first order logic: "$a, b, c$ are the lengths of the sides of a triangle"
- Existence of indiscernible set in model equivalent to another indiscernible set
- A ring embeds in a field iff every finitely generated sub-ring does it
- Graph with a vertex of infinite degree elementary equiv. with a graph with vertices of arbitrarily large finite degree
- What would be the function to make a formula false?
- Sufficient condition for isomorphism of $L$-structures when $L$ is relational
- Show that PA can prove the pigeon-hole principle
- Decidability and "truth value"
- Prove or disprove: $\exists x \forall y \,\,\varphi \models \forall y \exists x \,\ \varphi$
Related Questions in FOUNDATIONS
- Difference between provability and truth of Goodstein's theorem
- Can all unprovable statements in a given mathematical theory be determined with the addition of a finite number of new axioms?
- Map = Tuple? Advantages and disadvantages
- Why doesn't the independence of the continuum hypothesis immediately imply that ZFC is unsatisfactory?
- Formally what is an unlabeled graph? I have no problem defining labeled graphs with set theory, but can't do the same here.
- Defining first order logic quantifiers without sets
- How to generalize the mechanism of subtraction, from naturals to negatives?
- Mathematical ideas that took long to define rigorously
- What elementary theorems depend on the Axiom of Infinity?
- Proving in Quine's New Foundations
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
I will attempt to give you a vague outline what needs to be done to answer your first question. The second one I don't really understand, so I'll leave it for now.
For your first question, I understand that you mean the first-order axioms of real number system; you can't really do that for the original Euclid's axioms (they're too vague), and you can't for Hilbert's axioms either, because they're not first-order (though you can with some, most likely rather considerable effort show all the axioms except the last two). You can do it, however, for Tarski's axioms.
To do that in a formal sense, you need to somehow intepret the primitive notions of this axiomatisation, that is, those of a point, betweenness and congruence of segments. This is not hard: a point is a triple of numbers, and betweenness and congruence are definable because the real field can calculate the euclidean norm and it knows what a convex combination of two points is.
Once you have that, the Tarski's axioms follow from the axioms of the real field, since by Godel's completeness theorem any true statement has a proof, and the theory of real numbers is complete and is satisfied by the usual $({\bf R},+,\cdot,0,1)$, which also has all the properties postulated by Tarski under our interpretation (because, of course, ${\bf R}^3$ certainly is an euclidean space!). Alternatively, you can with some effort prove each axiom, but this can be a little tricky because of the axiom schema of continuity, which actually is an infinite set of axioms, but not all that hard.