Out of the numerous set theories (NBG, ZFC, etc) which is the current accepted one, or is it that each one has built upon the other?
2026-04-01 13:39:27.1775050767
Current accepted axiomatic set theory
183 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in SET-THEORY
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Proving the schema of separation from replacement
- Understanding the Axiom of Replacement
- Ordinals and cardinals in ETCS set axiomatic
- Minimal model over forcing iteration
- How can I prove that the collection of all (class-)function from a proper class A to a class B is empty?
- max of limit cardinals smaller than a successor cardinal bigger than $\aleph_\omega$
- Canonical choice of many elements not contained in a set
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
Related Questions in AXIOMS
- Should axioms be seen as "building blocks of definitions"?
- Non-standard axioms + ZF and rest of math
- Does $\mathbb{R}$ have any axioms?
- Finite axiomatizability of theories in infinitary logic?
- Continuity axioms and completness axioms for real numbers are the same things?
- Why don't we have many non euclidean geometries out there?
- Why do we need the axiom of choice?
- What axioms Gödel is using, if any?
- Determine if U a subspace of $P_3$?
- Why such stark contrast between the approach to the continuum hypothesis in set theory and the approach to the parallel postulate in geometry?
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?
Depends what you mean by "accepted." Perhaps you're asking "When people say a theorem has been proven without specifying which set theory (if any) they're working in, what should I assume they're working in 'by default'?" So I'll try answering this.
The vast majority of known mathematical results can be formalized as statements about sets, in the language of ZFC. And furthermore, if a theorem is stated "unconditionally" (i.e., they didn't specify which axioms they used), you can assume they only used axioms of ZFC. Since ZFC and NBG agree on which sentences in the language of ZFC are provable, you can choose to formalize the claim in either. NBG is only really necessary for the occasional claim that needs proper classes to be formalized. Otherwise, there's a general preference to work in ZFC due its simpler ontology (which is convenient when studying models of the respective theories.