On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Ken Hirsch wrote:
> In general you have to consider the whole system, including derivation
> rules, not just the axioms, although you can certain start with a set of
> axioms like:
>
> { x=1, x=2}
> or, come to think of it,
> { 1=2 }
You'd first have to define what '=' means
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
> there will be no inconsistency in a formal axiomatic
> systems
Can't prove a negative, even in a formal system.
--
We are all interested in the future for that is where you an
"Sarad AV" writes:
> there will be no inconsistency in a formal axiomatic
> systems
Huh?
>-but can any one point me to a contradicting
> set of axioms in an axiomatic system?
In general you have to consider the whole system, including derivation
rules, not just the axioms, although you can certa
hi,
> > Then, if any two or more axioms of an
> > alleged mathematical
> > theory are found to be inconsistent with each
> other,
> > the whole theory
> > collapses."
>
there will be no inconsistency in a formal axiomatic
systems-but can any one point me to a contradicting
set of axioms in an ax
hi,
Thats a beautiful one.
--- Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To assert that a theorem is
> false means to deny
> one or more of the axioms. However, to assert that a
> theorem is true does
> not necessarily mean to assert the truth of all
> axioms.
yes-it only means its time to update ou
N-Person Game Theory: Concepts and Applications
Anatol Rapoport
ISBN 0-486-41455-8 (Dover)
$13 US
[SSZ: If you get this, also get his "2-Person Game Theory" as well.]
Excerpt from "Introduction - Some Mathematical Tools", pp. 11
"Game theory is properly a branch of mathematics. As such it is co
