Axioms mathematics

A variant of the method discussed in this chapter has been proposed by C. A. R. Hoare using a set of axioms and rules of inference to establish partial correctness of programs. The method of Hoare appears more flexible in that axioms and rules can be introduced to cover various constructs of particular programming languages and their implementations, but also appears, at least to this author, even more cumbersome and unwieldy than the Floyd-Manna-King approach when applied to simple flowchart-like programs. The formal mathematical justification for both approaches is the same. Basically, the approach used to date employs "forward substitution" from hypothesis assertion to conclusion assertion while the Hoare... 

Unlike chemistry, mathematics often deals with infinite domains, and infinite axiom sets. If we allow the fact that two axioms infer the same conclusion to increase the truth value of that conclusion, we must choose some increment that reflects the importance of each individual axiom. If there are an infinite number of such axioms, then each axiom becomes infinitesimally important. Thus LT logic chooses to err on the side of conservatism, assuring that the conclusions will be valid, though perhaps less strong than they could actually be. 

A statistical measure of the frequency or regularity of occurrence of a measured outcome (or measurement) in an experiment subject to random fluctuations in the measurement. The fundamental axioms of mathematical probability are (a) if is any event in the sample space S, then the probabihty of E s occurrence [written P(E)] ranges over the interval from zero to one (b) over the entire sample space, F(E) equals one and (c) if events A and B are mutually exclusive, then the probability of their combined occurrence is the sum of the probabilities... 

Godel proved that the world of pure mathematics is inexhaustible no finite set of axioms and rules of inference can ever encompass the whole of mathematics given any finite set of axioms, we can find meaningful mathematical questions which the axioms leave unan-... 

Important meaningful facts, like the Pythagorean theorem, Eire then transformed into easily overlooked definitions. Of course, the substitution of definitions for theorems decreases the number of pages in textbooks, but then it does not leave the student any hope of understanding why it is necessary to consider these particular definitions. Moreover, it creates the impression that mathematics is the study of corollaries of arbitrary axioms. 

In the following we present the axioms or basic postulates of quantum mechanics and accompany them by their classical counterparts in the Hamiltonian formalism. We begin the presentation with a brief summary of some of the mathematical background essential for the developments in the following. It is by no means a comprehensive presentation, and the reader is supposed to have some basic knowledge about quantum mechanics that may be obtained from any of the many introductory textbooks in quantum mechanics. The focus here is on results of particular relevance to the subjects of this book. We consider, for example, a derivation of a formal expression for the flux density operator in quantum mechanics and its coordinate representation. A systematic way of generating any representation of any combination of operators is set up, and is of immediate usage for the time autocorrelation function of the flux operator used to determine the rate constants of a chemical process. 

Before describing the axioms of quantum mechanics, one needs some mathematical background in linear vector spaces. Since this may be acquired from any of the introductory textbooks on quantum mechanics, we shall just review some of the main points without going into much detail. 

The presentation of the subject matter so far has been cast in a somewhat deductive form, starting from a small number of axioms and exploring the mathematical consequences flowing therefrom or from individual minor modifications of the basic assumptions. The approach has been followed to establish the connection between very simple postulates and mathematically cumbersome-looking expressions for medium isotope effects. The procedure seems justified since it appears to us that the simple postulates are not seriously in error and will be substantially retained in any more complete theory. Possible improvements have been discussed in a mathematical vein, rather than by appealing to experimental data to point out where the basic theory is in need of modification. We hope that the reasons for this procedure have not entirely been lost in the algebra. Basically, the simple theory is fairly satisfactory. Its shortcomings are discernible only by precise... 

Boerhaave further argues that the mind transcends the material level of the body as it can think about immaterial objects hke universal truths, God, axioms, virtues and mathematical knowledge. 

Although some of the physical ideas of classical mechanics is older than written history, the basic mathematical concepts are based on Isaac Newton s axioms published in his book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica or principia that appeared in 1687. Translating from the original Latin, the three axioms or the laws of motion can be approximately stated [7] (p. 13) ... 

Neil also suggests that ancient Greek math was sometimes a hindrance to the development of modem science. Intellects such as Newton finally broke free from axioms inherited from the Greeks. Therefore, Neil feels that we may actually be better off without the Greek influence. Also, consider that Islam has been the source of much modem mathematics. The numerals we use in arithmetic and the concept of zero probably came from Islamic scholars. (There was some controversy among readers on this topic. Arlin Anderson suggests that the Arabic manuscript that intro-... 

If the digits of k were found to be nonrandom, you might be able to describe them with a finite formula. The implications for mathematics would be certainly amazing, but I don t know about the world. (It would be equivalent to a proof that the axioms of the real numbers are inconsistent, since it would disprove that n is transcendental, which is a basic mathematical theorem.)... 

The non-Hermitian formulation discussed in the present work is also different from a recent formulation involving non-Hermitian Hamiltonians where the mathematical axiom of Hermiticity is replaced by the condition of space-time reflection symmetry [39]. 

In terms of the methodology of scientific concepts, the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics are basic statements that cannot be proved further. These laws play a similar fundamental role as axioms in mathematics. Unlike axioms in mathematics the basic laws of thermodynamics like other basic laws in natural sciences, e.g., MaxwelFs equations, are based on observations. These observations are generalized. The result of these observations is extended to a basic law, also addressed as a postulate. 

The second law of thermodynamics is believed to be a fact that cannot boil down to more basic statements. It is somewhat like a postulate, or in mathematics, an axiom. However, from the formal view, the enttopy can reach only a maximum, if a maximum in fact exists. Otherwise, entropy cannot reach a maximum. Here we confine ourselves to nonpathological functions, as encountered in physics. From elementary mathematics, there are two conditions necessary for a maximum, namely d5 = 0 and d 5 < 0. If we are somewhat away from the maximum, we have the condition d5 > 0. In this case, the sign of the independent variable tells the direction where to find the maximum. 

In Chapter 5 we will examine more closely the formal structure of mathematics as a language based upon axioms. In the meantime, it is clear that a modern view of science and mathematics cannot argue that they are based on truths of empirical fact or truths of reason. They are, as we began to realise in the first section of this chapter, models of our view of the world, models based upon our categorial framework. 

What we have discussed so far is not strictly mathematics the systems L and Ki are systems of logic. The absence of restrictions on the language Xmake the coiiclusions deducible from them very general and they are interpretable in many different ways. If is interpreted in a mathematical way then the theorems of are mathematical truths by virtue of their logical structure. Earlier the symbol A was interpreted as =, and one cannot get far in mathematics without it. For example the statement ( V Xi) ( V X2) (Aj (xi, X2) Ay (X2,xi)) is interpreted as (for all natural numbers Xj, ifxj = X2 then X2 = x,). This is a consequence of the meaning of =, for the w/as it stands is not logically valid and so is not a theorem of K. To introduce this idea into a mathematical interpretation of At, the axioms are extended by axioms of equality such as, for example, (xi, Xi) which means Xi = x,. The other axioms ensure that for example / >,.. . y. .. )=/I>i... z. .. )ify = z. 

One of the fundamental ideas of mathematics based on an extension of At is Group Theory. A group consists of variables x,X2... an identity constant / function symbols predicate symbol = punctuation (,) and logical symbols V, D. Three extra axioms are... 

Now we cannot validly state the major premise 1 (all men are mortal) unless we have convinced ourselves that every man who lives is mortal and this includes me. In other words statement 2 is in advance contained in 1 and so the conclusion tells us nothing we do not already know. However, this does not deny that the conclusion is a useful one. We shall find that since mathematics is based on a more complex deductive system, it may be argued that it is also analytic although its axioms are synthetic. 

---