Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

AXIOM

Name: Admin 2007-03-05 19:52 ID:Jiiuh0Of

Is it possible to have a number system without the symmetry of equality axiom?

e.g
a=b;
b!=a;

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-05 20:32 ID:WjFvfjTF

>>1
= is traditionally an equivalence relation, and equivalence relations are symmetric by definition. That's not to say you couldn't use = to mean something other than an equivalence relation of course, but you'd probably succeed only in confusing your readers.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-05 20:40 ID:QuDqw2Su

Define "number system". Generally when we refer to a number system, we mean a set along with certain axioms relating its elements; at the very least, we mean a group, and the equivalence relation (which requires symmetry) is a fundamental requirement of a group.

tl;dr = no

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-05 20:40 ID:Heaven

>>3 was in response to >>1, just to clarify

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-07 11:50 ID:nWN8M8VP

>>3
no = tl;dr ?

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-08 3:24 ID:Heaven

>>5
tl;dr = sagee = tl;dr

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-08 9:06 ID:4ILEPCw6

a=1
b=1

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-08 9:08 ID:4ILEPCw6

or

a=2
b=2

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-08 9:32 ID:t+Lpzb6L

>>7
>>8
He doesn't mean factorial you dimwit

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-08 12:38 ID:4ILEPCw6

What, then? A postalveolar click?

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-10 16:43 ID:+UmYpLms

a=malloc(sizeof(int));
b=malloc(sizeof(int));

*a = *b;

if ( a != b )
{
    printf( "dongs" );
}

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-10 22:50 ID:6Q/4jtzv

Only if the act of comparing the two numbers changed the value of one of them.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-10 23:18 ID:RXiOJG5T

>>12
learn math or get the fuck out

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-11 3:51 ID:y7G9OfWF

>>1
You probably asking this:
A is same as B :: without:: A is equal to B
=A is in the same place in the same set as B

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-11 6:56 ID:QF7B11O7

If you're talking about something akin to first-order Peano arithmetic, no; axiom #2 is "every natural number is equal to itself", which is roughly the corollary of saying that every natural number has only one unique successor. (If you're talking about _non_-Peano arithmetic, then you're in crazyland, populated by utter loons.)

Non-commutative _operations_, on the other hand, are quite spiffy.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-11 8:47 ID:c2C+ck5g

>>10
not equal to

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-11 13:20 ID:OAYBRFmw

>>15
a = b <-> b = a is not commutativity, it is reflexivity.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-13 8:34 ID:DpSYxQbU

>>16
I hope you can see this because I'm doing it as hard as I can.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-15 16:41 ID:eUSID22I

Not OP

>>3
What about an example that isn't a number system.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-16 12:23 ID:Heaven

>>19
What

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-18 18:37 ID:50kkLRzs

>>20

Like how you can make a set that isn't a vector space (in linear algebra). Is there a way that you can define everything so that 'a = b', but 'b =/= a'?

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-18 19:10 ID:RDN1/GA/

>>21
No. It's just how the = sign is defined. It is symmetric.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-18 19:13 ID:RDN1/GA/

>>22 continued:
for any number system or non number system or whatever, the = sign is symmetric.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-19 0:16 ID:+/jyj6PP

paraconsistent logics lol

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-19 0:24 ID:ey9eEqTV

>>1
The definition of "equals" ("=") says that the property is 1)symmetric, 2)reflexive, and 3)transitive. Therefore, no, it is not possible to have a equal b but b not equal a.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-19 0:51 ID:LO2RzdXX

Perhaps if we take the ACTUAL = operator, not the symbol "=", to be an assignment operator.

int a = 3;

A has value 3 but a does not == 3.

3 =/= a.

Thoughts?

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-19 8:48 ID:Heaven

>>26
programmers gtfo. you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. If a has value 3, then a == 3. = is not an operator in mathematics.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-19 16:51 ID:Tp9mldTT

>>26
The operator 3=/=a would return false.

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-19 20:13 ID:I8xrfb+z

>>25
>>23
Then is there even a point in making it an axiom?

Name: Anonymous 2007-03-20 0:30 ID:oo+/epT8

>>29
Yes. The axiom is equivalent to other statements that are important. For example, >>15

Name: Anonymous 2012-05-06 18:48

You just want a different binary relation (i.e. one that is not an equivalence relation)

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List