The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: ZFC+Forms
Replies: 12   Last Post: Jan 1, 2013 12:29 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 2,665
Registered: 6/29/07
Posted: Dec 26, 2012 2:24 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Add a new primitive to the language of ZFC, this primitive is the
binary relation "exemplifies" denoted by the infix dyadic symbol ~


R is a form defining relation iff
R is an equivalence relation &
For all x. ~x=0 -> For all s. Exist y. y R x & s in TC(y)

TC(y) refers to the 'transitive closure of y" defined in the usual
manner as the minimal transitive superset of y.

To the axioms of ZFC add the following axiom scheme:

Forms: if R is a binary relation symbol, then

[R is a form defining relation ->
For all x. Exist! $ For all y (y ~ $ <-> y R x)]

is an axiom.

$ above is called the "form" defined after R.

Now the idea is that For any theory T if T can be interpreted in a
fragment T* of ZFC+forms such that all "objects" of T are interpreted
as "FORMS" in T*, then T is a mathematical theory.

Example: Peano Arithmetic "PA" is interpretable in in a fragment of ZFC
+forms where all objects of PA (i.e. the natural numbers) are
interpretable as forms defined after equivalence relation bijection in
the following manner:

# is a natural number <-> (Exist x. for all y. y ~ # <-> y bijective
to x)

The general idea is that mathematics is nothing but

"Discourse about possible form".

So ZFC+forms supplies the necessary extension of logic that covers a
wide piece of Ontology, and thus provides a consistent discourse about
its objects. ZFC+forms is viewed here as an extension of logic, and
thus being essentially a kind of powerful logic, so it belongs more to
arena of logic than to mathematics.

"Discourse" here follows the line of defining it as:

"Interpretability in a consistent extension of logic".

So here ZFC+forms is the necessary extension of logic that provides
the basis for 'discourse'.

So Mathematics here is viewed as discourse about form, so any theory
interpretable in ZFC+forms where all objects of that theory are
definable as forms in ZFC+forms, then this theory is considered to
provide a discourse about form, and thus being a mathematical theory.

Now according to the above understanding of what constitutes
a mathematical theory, it is obvious that consistency plays a pivotal
rule, it signifies that the mathematical theory in question
is Possibly true, it doesn't prove that the relevant theory is THE
truth about forms it negotiates. Being true requires more than
just being possible, it requires that the theory fulfills some of the
basic expectations about simple mathematical facts, and how
that is done is actually the subject of many different disciplines
like constructivists, predicativists, etc... so it is a debatable

However if we provide a consistent discourse about form, then this
signifies possible truth about that form which is what makes this
theory mathematical or not.

Now the question about what is the 'nature' of those forms is not
really mathematical, it is philosophical.

So roughly speaking this account view mathematics as being
about "Logics of Form".

But is it the case that mathematics should engage itself with any
possible form? The answer is of course no since that is not possible.
So definitely mathematical discourse would be about "interesting"
kinds of form. This almost grow in a recursive manner, starting from
obviously interesting kinds of form like "number" ,"point" "line"
etc.. then discourse about those yields problems the solutions of
which inherits the interest, and those solutions lead to interesting
problems the solutions of which are interesting etc.. This Tree of
interest is what guides research about form.

Of course other kinds of discourse might be interesting. Actually any
discourse other than the trivial discourse of proving everything is
somehow interesting. However Consistent discourse represents the
strongest and most interesting kind of those, and it might be possible
that para-consistent (inconsistency tolerant) discourses prove to be
dispensable with by the use of consistent discourse, however if that
was not the case then para-consistent discourse about form would
constitute a mathematical concept as well since it would be a kind of
'non trivial discourse about possible form'.

This of course gives a logicist flavor to mathematics albeit not
completely so, since ideation about "form" is not solely a logical
issue, it does have its innate nature that separates it from the
logical background in which it is implemented.

Now all mathematical disciplines we know of do follow this line of
thought: Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, Analysis, Group theory,
topology, Category Theory, Graph Theory, Number theory, etc... All do
clearly follow the above line of thought.

On the other hand: Set theory, Mereology, Recursion Theory,
Modal theory, and Proof Theory and of course the logical
systems, all belong to the logical background apparatus upon the
shoulders of which mathematics stands.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.