Asked:
11 minutes ago

More new questions »

Answered

An axiom is a basic mathematical truth used in proofs, outlined initially by Euclid. Axioms are self-evident and do not need to be proven, they can be combined and used logica…lly to prove more complex mathematical concepts, especially in geometry. Example: "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line." (MORE)

Answered

axioms are statements which cannot be proved.but these statements are accepted universally.we know that any line can be drawn joining any two points.this does not have a proof… (MORE)

Answered

In Algebra

Reflexive: For all real numbers x, x=x. Symmetric: For all real numbers x and y, if x=y, then y=x. Transitive: For all real numbers x, y, and z, if x=y and y=z…, then x=z. (MORE)

Answered

Field Axioms are assumed truths regarding a collection of items in a field. Let a, b, c be elements of a field F. Then: Commutativity: a+b=b+a and a*b=b*a Associativity: (a+b)…+c=a+(b+c) and (a*b)*c = a*(b*c) Distributivity: a*(b+c)=a*b+b*c Existence of Neutral Elements: There exists a zero element 0 and identify element i, such that, a+0=a a*i=a Existence of Inverses: There is an element -a such that, a+(-a)=0 for each a unequal to the zero element, there exists an a' such that a*a'=1 (MORE)

Answered

In Science

Euclid posited five axioms, statements whose truth supposedly does not require a proof, as the foundation of his work, the Elements. These still hold for plane geometry, but d…o not hold in the higher non-euclidean systems. The five axioms Euclid proposed are; Any two points can be connected by one, and only one, straight line. Any line segment can be extended infinitely For any point, and a line emerging from it, a circle can be drawn where the point is the centre and the line is the radius. All right angles are equal Given a line, and a point not on the line, there is only line that goes through the point that does not meet the other line. (basically, there is only one parallel to any given line) This last point is controversial as it has been argued effectively that this is not in fact self evident. In fact, ignoring the fifth axiom was the starting point for many Non-Euclidean geometries. For this reason, it is probably this which is best known as Euclid's Axiom. (MORE)

Answered

In Science

An axiom is a self-evident truth that is not proven, only accepted, such as that for any two real numbers a and b, either a > b, a = b, or a < b.

Answered

There are two types of mathematical axioms: logical and non-logical. Logical axioms are the "self-evident," unprovable, mathematical statements which are held to be universa…lly true across all disciplines of math. The axiomatic system known as ZFC has great examples of logical axioms. I added a related link about ZFC if you'd like to learn more. Non-logical axioms, on the other hand, are the axioms that are specific to a particular branch of mathematics, like arithmetic, propositional calculus, and group theory. I added links to those as well. (MORE)

Answered

No, axioms are the starting rules that you use to prove everything else, ie they are assumed truths.

Answered

Say there's a relation ~ between the two objects a and b such that a ~ b. We call ~ an equivalence relation if: i) a ~ a. ii) If a ~ b. then b ~ a. iii) If a ~ b and b ~ c, t…hen a ~ c. Where c is another object. The three properties above are called the reflexive, symmetric, and transitive properties. Were those three properties all that was needed to define the equality relation, we could safely call them axioms. However, one more property is needed first. To show you why, I'll give an example. Consider the relation, "is parallel to," represented by ||. We'll check the properties above to see if || is an equivalence relation. i) a || a. Believe it or not, whether this statement is true is an ongoing debate. Many people feel that the parallel relation isn't defined for just one line, because it's a comparison. Well, if that were true, then you would have to say the same thing for every binary equivalence relation; e.g., a triangle couldn't be similar to itself, or, even more preposterously, the statement a = a would have to be tossed out the window too. But, just to be formal, we'll use the following definition for parallel lines: Two lines are not parallel if they have exactly one point in common; otherwise they are parallel. So, with that definition in hand, i) holds for ||. ii) If a || b, then b || a. True. iii) If a || b and b || c, then a || c. True. Thus, the relation || is an equivalence relation, but two parallel lines certainly don't have to be equal! So, we need an additional property to describe an equality relation: iv) If a ~ b and b ~ a, then a = b. Let's check iv) and see if this works for our relation ||: If a || b and b || a, then a = b. False. But, does it hold for the equality relation? If a = b and b = a then a = b. True. This is what's known as the antisymmetric property, and is what distinguishes equality from equivalence. But wait, we have a problem. We used the relation = in one of our "axioms" of equality. That doesn't work, because equality wasn't part of the signature of the formal language we're using here. By the way, the signature of the formal language that we are using is ~. So, any other non-logical symbol we use has to either be defined, or derived from axioms. Well, we have three possible ways out of this. We can either: 1) Figure out a way to axiomize the = relation through the use of the ~ relation. 2) Define the = relation. 3) Add = to our language's signature. Well, 1) is not possible without the use of sets, and since the existence of sets isn't part of our signature either, we'd have to define a set, or add it to our language. This isn't very hard to do, but I'm not going to bother, because the result is what we're going to obtain from 2). Anyways, speaking of 2), let's define =. For all predicates (also called properties) P, and for all a and b, P(a) if and only if P(b) implies that a = b. In other words, for a to be equal to b, any property that either of them have must also be a property of the other. In this case, the term property means exactly what you think it means; e.g. red, even, tall, Hungarian, etc. So, the million dollar question is, by defining =, are our properties now officially axioms? For three of the properties, the answer is no. In fact, because we just defined =, we've turned properties ii), iii), and iv) from above into theorems, not axioms. Why? Because, property iv) still has that = relation in it, which we had to define. So, iv) is a true statement, but we had to use another statement to prove it. That's the definition of a theorem! And, since the qualifier for iv)'s truth was that a ~ b and b ~ a, we can now freely replace b with a in ii), giving us "If a ~ a, then a ~ a." Well, now ii)'s proven as well, but we had to use iv) to do it. Thus, both ii) and iv) are now theorems. Finally, iii) can be proven in a similar was as ii) was, so it, too, is a theorem. However, our definition of = only related a to b, it never related a to itself. Thus, we need to include i), from above, as an axiom. Just for kicks, let's try plan 3) too. The idea here is to make = a part of our signature, which means now we don't need to define it. In fact, we can't define it if we put it in our signature; because by placing it there, we're assuming that it's understood without definition. Therefore, iv) must now be assumed to be true, because we have no means to prove it; that sounds like an axiom to me! However, just like before, we can prove both ii) and iii) through the use of iv), so they get relegated back to the land of theorems and properties. Interestingly though, iv) makes no mention of reflexivity, and since our formal definition of = is gone, we have no way to prove i). Once again, we have to assume that it's true. Thus i) is an axiom as well. So, to paraphrase our two separate situations: In order for the relation ~ to be considered an equality relation between the objects a and b, one axiom must be satisfied if we define =: 1) For all a, a ~ a, as well as three theorems: 1) If a ~ b, then b ~ a 2) If a ~ b and b ~ c, then a ~ c, where c is another object 3) For all a and b, if a ~ b and b ~ a, then a = b. Additionally, In order for the relation ~ to be considered an equality relation between the objects a and b, two axioms must be satisfied if we put = into our signature: 1) For all a, a ~ a 2) For all a and b, if a ~ b and b ~ a, then a = b, as well as two properties: 1) If a ~ b, then b ~ a 2) If a ~ b and b ~ c, then a ~ c, where c is another object. What the one right above did is include "=" into our formal language, but "=" is equality, so he actually came up with a fairly well axiom before he finishes with the circular looking one. His axiom: We say ~ is an equality relation means whenever x ~ y, for any condition P, P(x) iff P(y) The axiom is the bolded part. After discussion with my Math prof. this morning, that axiom becomes a properties follows from this more formal definition. It does not need to include any more things then what we already have for the formal language. We say ~ is an equality relation on a set A if (a set is something that satisfies the set axioms) For any element in A, a ~ a. If follows that P(a) is true and y ~ a, then P(y) is also true, vice versa. Because in this case, y has to be a for it to work. You might argue well the definition for an equivalence relation have this statement in it too, does that mean equivalence IS equality? No! It's the other way around, equality is equivalence. Equality is the most special case for any relation, say *, where a * a. Take an equivalence relation, say isomorphisms for instance (don't know what that word mean? Google or as it on this website), we know any linear transformation T is isomorphic to T, in particular this isomorphism IS equality. Of course it would be boring if isomorphism is JUST equality, so it's MORE. The other axioms in a definition of a relation are to differ THEM from equality, because equality is the most basic. Equality must always be assumed, it always exist, any other relation is built upon it. It is the most powerful relation, because ALL relations have it. (I mean all relations, say *, such that a * a for all a must at least be equality) (MORE)

Answered

In Algebra

randomness like i know what this is dont ask me oh wait it is letters