If something is proved for one set of axioms then you can use it for that set of axioms but wouldn't you have to prove it for another set of axioms before you could use if for the second set of axioms. So for instance must you prove 2+2=4 for every set of axioms before you can use it in any set of axioms, and is this for any piece of maths? P.S. Sorry about the title, could not think of an appropriate title, so feel free to change it or ask me to change it, thanks.
2026-03-31 18:47:30.1774982850
Proving statements for individual and/or all sets of axioms
103 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 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?
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?
The following answer is under the working assumption that we are talking about classical first-order logic.
Suppose that we can prove $\varphi$ from $T$. If $S$ is a theory such that $S\vdash T$, that is every axiom in $t$ is provable from $S$, then $\varphi$ is provable from $S$.
For example, consider the language including $0,s$ and $+$, where $s$ is an unary function whose meaning is "$sx$ is the successor of $x$". We don't have symbols for $1$ and $2$, but we write $1$ as a shorthand for $s0$ and $2$ as a shorthand for $ss0$.
Now we write the axioms: 1. $\forall x(x+0=x)$, and 2. $\forall x\forall y(x+s(y)=s(x+y))$.
We can now write a proof that $1+1=2$:
Now whenever we have $T$ whose language includes $s,0,+$ and $T$ proves the two axioms, we know that $T$ proves that $1+1=2$. This goes even further. If we can define (for every model of $T$) a constant $0$, a function $s$ and an operation $+$, and $T$ can prove the two axioms hold for those definable objects, then $T$ proves that $1+1=2$ for those as well.
On the other hand, in some cases we want to take something much weaker than $T$, and see if it still suffices to prove something. In those cases we need to actually work out the proof, or show that the two axioms hold for the addition. Or we can talk about a theory which is not weaker or stronger, but it is not provable from $T$ nor vice versa. In that case, again, we need to give some proof - and it might be a different one, depending on theory and the language.