[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:

View post   
>> No.9795312 [View]
File: 106 KB, 1000x1189, 1486037095830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9795312

>>9795307
Research and circlejerk.

>> No.9606654 [View]
File: 106 KB, 1000x1189, 1486037095830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9606654

>>9606649
Smart people see beauty in tau and ugliness in pi.

>> No.9510665 [View]
File: 106 KB, 1000x1189, 1486037095830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9510665

>>9510660
I knew someone would post this. Will he help me fight the degeneracy of mainstream mathematics ridden with results by (((them)))?

>> No.9431618 [View]
File: 106 KB, 1000x1189, 1486037095830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9431618

>>9430889
>tfw to intelegent to be liked

>>9430925
>>9430943
Diese, ja!

>> No.9048417 [View]
File: 106 KB, 1000x1189, 1486037095830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9048417

>>9048392
I'm neither of those, so don't blame them for this, but the independence of (not-)AC from ZF means you can have both ZFC and ZFnC.

What you would like to find is a claim P that implies the negation of the axiom of choice. Such a claim is, ofc, independent of ZF, or else not-AC wouldn't be. Therefore, you can add this P as your axiom, giving you some set theory ZFP whose axioms are the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms and the claim P. The easiest way to do this would be to choose P=not-AC, but you can find a stronger claim too.

Also, check constructivistic logic.

>> No.8981211 [View]
File: 106 KB, 1000x1189, 1486037095830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8981211

>>8981188
to intelegent to proofify

>> No.8961197 [View]
File: 106 KB, 1000x1189, 1486037095830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8961197

>>8961102
>I'm interested in all of that
Good, good, my little one.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]