• Play
  • About
  • News
  • Forums
  • Yppedia
  • Help
Welcome Guest   | Login
  Index  | Recent Threads  | Register  | Search  | Help  | RSS feeds  | View Unanswered Threads  
  Search  


Quick Go »
Thread Status: Normal
Total posts in this thread: 8
[Add To My Favorites] [Watch this Thread] [Post new Thread]
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 1796 times and has 7 replies Next Thread
BehindCurtai

Member's Avatar


Joined: May 25, 2004
Posts: 12589
Status: Offline
Math question: Determined choice (or, choice of determinant) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

So ...

Well, there's a pair of wikipedia articles. Axiom of Choice, and Axiom of Determinacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_determinacy

Yes, up til now I've used classic set theory. I know that you have to ensure that defining a set by a property requires you to determine that the set does not have that property (a set cannot contain itself), and that construction by negation is illegal under the Russel Paradox.

But ...

Well, I don't understand ZF-set theory. And then there's ZFC set theory.

I mean, choice seems to make sense.
But the consequences of determinacy makes even more sense.

Is there is decent introduction for someone that used to be a math/logic major 20-some years ago?

And don't get me started on ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaccessible_cardinal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointless_topology

... so apparently you can divide a sphere into 5 parts, each of which has the same measure as the full sphere?

http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2339.html

... my brain hurts.
----------------------------------------
"We're trying to find the error bars on that number"

Dylan wrote: 
Why buy sham poo when real poo is so readily available

[Feb 5, 2011 10:36:53 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    http://StrictConstitution.BlogSpot.Com [Link]  Go to top 
Dylan

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 10005
Status: Offline
Re: Math question: Determined choice (or, choice of determinant) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
I mean, choice seems to make sense.
But the consequences of determinacy makes even more sense.


To me (after a similar gap) Choice remains natural, whereas Determinacy seems very much like an unfounded assumption.

Axioms should (must) be consistent with themselves, so asking questions like "does the set of all sets excluding itself exist" is pointless masturbation. But you don't have to use every axiom you can think of to form a mathematical theory (= "if we assume these axioms, what do we end up with?")

If two axioms are mutually contradictory, then there is NOTHING wrong with picking one OR the other, and forming two theories (and many conflicting theorems) from those.

As you know, mathematics is sometimes about turning your brain off "intuitive" explanations, and exploring the purely logical. Turns out (Go"del) that we can't prove everything, even in a supposedly complete system.

Suspension of disbelief!
[Feb 5, 2011 11:26:25 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Alfwyn

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 24, 2005
Posts: 974
Status: Offline
Re: Math question: Determined choice (or, choice of determinant) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Axiom of Choice - sure makes sense
Well-ordering theorem - no way that can hold (for R^2 for example)

The two are logical aquivalent - oops

 
... so apparently you can divide a sphere into 5 parts, each of which has the same measure as the full sphere?

But then again this only happens if the parts form sets with most mathematicans would call non-measurable. Or the power set of the reals is just too big to make sense, one should take more sane subsets such as collections of Borel-sets to measure things.

And now to some stuff I was thinking about, but which may be completely bogus too:

Ok, all this mess just starts to crop up if you fool around with uncountable sets. Why not just ditch them completely, are they really needed? The rationals are countable. The larger set of algebraic numbers is still countable. The still larger set of all numbers you can describe in a finite way (one would need and probably could define this in a rigorous way) is countable, since the descriptions are. But this last set contains all interesting numbers (and some more) you can think of (given only finite time).
[Feb 5, 2011 3:11:54 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Dylan

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 10005
Status: Offline
Re: Math question: Determined choice (or, choice of determinant) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Ok, all this mess just starts to crop up if you fool around with uncountable sets. Why not just ditch them completely, are they really needed?


There is nothing "better or worse" about the difference between countable infinity (aleph zero) and uncountable (the power-set of it, aleph one).

However to ignore one completely (and thereby, solutions to infinite series, as opposed to limited polynomials) is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
[Feb 5, 2011 3:26:22 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Alfwyn

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 24, 2005
Posts: 974
Status: Offline
Re: Math question: Determined choice (or, choice of determinant) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
However to ignore one completely (and thereby, solutions to infinite series


Oh, I didn't plan to ditch all those, only solutions to infinite series you can't even write down. Those you can write down somehow describe numbers that have a finite description (the series you wrote down).

You can sort all finite descriptions (that actually unambigiously describe a number) "alphabetically", hence the generated numbers form a countable set.
[Feb 5, 2011 3:48:45 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Dylan

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 10005
Status: Offline
Re: Math question: Determined choice (or, choice of determinant) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
You can sort all finite descriptions (that actually unambigiously describe a number) "alphabetically", hence the generated numbers form a countable set.


Ok, what is the smallest number that can't be described in one more character than this post of mine?
[Feb 5, 2011 3:54:24 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
BehindCurtai

Member's Avatar


Joined: May 25, 2004
Posts: 12589
Status: Offline
Re: Math question: Determined choice (or, choice of determinant) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Do you want that answered seriously? :-).

Aleph-zero, or aleph-null, or omega/wubble-u: The number of integers. The countables. Approximated by A(g,g) or {0, 1, 2, 3, ... | } (Do I have that notation correct?)

Aleph-one, or Cantor's number (?): The number of reals.

Aleph-two: The number of functions from reals to reals.

Aleph-three: ???

That's how I understand it / had it explained to me. Do I have it accurate?

Whether there is a number between Aleph-null and Aleph-one: Arbitrary. Most modern mathematicians apparently want to assume that there are numbers between them, but don't ask me why. (Or so I'm told.)
----------------------------------------
"We're trying to find the error bars on that number"

Dylan wrote: 
Why buy sham poo when real poo is so readily available

[Feb 5, 2011 10:38:35 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    http://StrictConstitution.BlogSpot.Com [Link]  Go to top 
REJBELLS

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 16, 2005
Posts: 1435
Status: Offline
Re: Math question: Determined choice (or, choice of determinant) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Sounds like ye all are ..trying to go where no man has gone before..(picture Captain Kirke in the first series..)
Perhaps 'we' just have not gotten there...yet.
Perhaps The Dreamer has not Dreamed.
----------------------------------------
Wildsrose Of:
Cerulean, Meridian & Emerald

The Titan. The Kraken.
[Feb 6, 2011 8:07:36 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
[Show Printable Version of Thread] [Post new Thread]

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2016 Grey Havens, LLC All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates