Difference between revisions of "Talk:Axiom of Choice"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Elucidate "unprovable without it".)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
QED
 
QED
 
[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 21:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 
[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 21:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
This axiom actually can prove things which are (provably) unprovable without it; an example is Zorn's lemma.  (Funnily enough, although Zorn is a guy's name, it's also a German word meaning "rage" ;-) --[[User:AMackenzie|AMackenzie]] 14:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 18:29, August 2, 2008

Not really controversial anymore

Any proof which uses the axiom of choice can be transformed into a proof that doesn't. Granted, it will be a somewhat more complicated proof, but it always works, and that's a fact. That is the reason that AC is much less controversial these days than it was, in the early 1900s.

There is a complete explanation of the process and the proof that it's reliable here.

Also, the profoundly intuitive trichotomy is equivalent to AC, so be careful what you call controversial. BenjB 20:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)


Actually, the Axiom of Choice has been proven independent of ZF, so there is no such transformation of a proof. Otherwise, "prove" AC as follows:


1. Axiom of Choice | Reason: Axiom of Choice

Then transform it to not need AC. Result: AC proven in ZF,so ZFC=ZF. But AC proved independent of ZF. Therefore, no such transformation exists. QED SamSamson 21:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

This axiom actually can prove things which are (provably) unprovable without it; an example is Zorn's lemma. (Funnily enough, although Zorn is a guy's name, it's also a German word meaning "rage" ;-) --AMackenzie 14:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)