Module 3

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction, and the

Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Introduction

We can compare the basic characteristics of any branch of mathematics to the basic
characteristics of a game.

Most games have a vocabulary of special terms, some defined and some
undefined. After a player acquires this vocabulary, he/she learns the rules of the
game — that is, what moves can be made and what moves are not allowed.
Normally, the player accepts these rules without question. For instance, in the game
of baseball, one rule says that a runner must run the bases in a counterclockwise
direction. When a youngster is first learning how to play baseball, he/she sometimes
wants to run the bases in a clockwise direction. But when he/she is told that the
rules state that a runner must run the bases the other way – (counterclockwise),
he/she accepts this. Similarly, we all accept that a queen ranks higher than a jack in
card games. Why? Because the rules say so.

After learning the undefined terms, defined terms, and rules of a game, we are
ready to play. Once we have mastered the elementary moves of the game, we
usually try more complicated moves using the rules (as in the game of chess).

In mathematics, the rules are called axioms. The new results that have evolved from
the undefined terms, defined terms, and axioms (rules) are called theorems.

Axioms form the basis of mathematical proofs that are written in order to establish
theorems. In order to formally prove conjectures, we must start with some assumed
information. Axioms often supply us with this given information.

Learning Outcomes
After studying this module, you should be able to:

1. Discuss the elements of an axiomatic system;

2. Illustrate an axiomatic system; and

3. Construct proofs.
Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

4.1 Definition and Features of an Axiomatic System

The study of axiomatic systems can be traced back to the Greeks, who as early as
600 B.C. began to study the logical connections among mathematical facts. Around
300 B.C., Euclid organized most of the known mathematics of his time so that
virtually all theorems were proved from a small collection of definitions and axioms,
and thus the axiomatic method was born. Today, the axiomatic method is the
distinctive structure of mathematics (and much of science). No mathematical claim
is accepted unless it can be proved from basic axioms.

In essence, an axiomatic system consists of four essential components: defined

terms, undefined terms, axioms, and theorems.

4.1.1 Defined terms

A definition is the statement of a single, unambiguous idea that the word, phrase,
or symbol being defined represents.

Defined terms are not actually necessary, but in nearly every axiomatic system
certain phrases involving undefined terms are used repeatedly. Thus, it is more
efficient to substitute a new term, that is, a defined term, for each of these phrases
whenever they occur. For example, we substitute the term “parallel lines”

The single, unambiguous idea is called the characteristic property of the

definition. It is a condition such that, given any object:

i. We can determine whether or not that object satisfies the condition; and
ii. The term being defined is used to label everything that satisfies the
condition and is not used to label anything else.

For example, the statement “An isosceles triangle is a triangle in which two sides
are equal” accurately defines an isosceles triangle, while the statement “A square is
a four-sided figure” does not accurately defines a square because there are four-
sided figures which we do not want to call a square.

In general, a good definition must not be circular - that is, its defining condition
must neither use the term itself nor use terms that are themselves defined using the
term being defined.

Defining a word by simply giving a synonym can lead to a problem of “circularity”.

For example, if we define number as quantity, define quantity as amount, and define
amount as number, we have stated that there are three different labels for the same
idea; but we have not said what the idea is.

The following statements are circular:

i. Two angles are supplementary if each is the supplement of the other.

ii. An obtuse triangle is a triangle that is obtuse.
Page 2 of 24 July 2018
Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

The assertions “An odd number is a whole number that is not even,” and “An even
number is a whole number that is not odd,” taken together, amount to a circular
pair of definitions because the characteristic property of each one depends on the
other. Either definition taken by itself is fine, provided that the other term has been
defined independently.

CLASSROOM ACTIVITY (10 minutes):

The following exercises concern definitions. If some of these terms are not familiar
to you, look them up in a dictionary.

(a) Determine whether the given statement accurately defines the given word or
phrase (in its usual sense):

1. Two angles are supplementary if each is the supplement of the other.

2. An acute triangle is a triangle with all of its angles equal.

3. A rectangle is a quadrilateral with two right angles

(b) if not, identify whether the statement is circular or is not characteristic;

(c) If the statement is not characteristic, give an example (verbally or by means

of a figure) that fits the given description but not the word or phrase
described, or vice versa.

The requirement that definitions cannot be circular means that some terms must be
undefined.

4.1.2 Undefined terms

Undefined (primitive) terms in an axiomatic system are used to form a

fundamental vocabulary with which other terms can be defined.

Even though a term may be undefined, this does not mean that it is meaningless.
As you learned in your high school geometry course, point, line, and plane are not
defined terms yet we know what they are. Another example is the term set.
Although set is an undefined term, that does not prevent us from having an intuitive
idea of what set means. In other words, the undefined terms of an axiomatic
system acquire their meanings from the context.

There are two types of undefined terms: elements and relations. Elements are
undefined terms that imply objects, while relations are undefined terms that imply
relationships between objects.

Page 3 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Example

In the statement “a point is on a line”, the undefined terms are “point”, “line”, and
“on”. “Point” and “line” are elements while “on” is a relation.

From the level of undefined terms, it is not easy to give definitions of even simple
objects. However, this is necessary since we cannot assume that different people
understand terms the same way. Disagreements exist even in the mathematical
literature. Take the basic geometric notion of a triangle. If you ask a few non-
mathematicians what a triangle is, you probably will get different answers including
the following drawings.

Fig. 1. Triangular region vs. triangle

The most popular answer may describe a triangular region such as the shaded
region in Fig.1. A geometer may call that a region bounded by a triangle and give
the un-shaded figure as an example of a triangle. Hence, the need for definitions,
even for simple mathematical objects.

CLASSROOM ACTIVITY (10 minutes):

Identify most “basic words” of the English language, words that you learned by
example and context as a young child. Are these words “undefined” in the same
sense as the undefined words of a mathematical axiom system? Justify your
position.

4.1.3 Axioms

So how are the meanings of the undefined terms determined? From the axiomatic
point of view, the undefined terms are implicitly defined by basic propositions that
involve these terms. Such propositions are called axioms.

Axioms are statements that are accepted as true without proof.

A logically sound argument that progresses from ideas you accept to the statement
you are wondering about is what mathematicians call a proof. It is a mixture of
everyday language and strict logic.

In mathematics, as in the physical sciences, we may run an experiment or check a

few cases to come up with a conjecture for a theorem. However, in mathematics,
Page 4 of 24 July 2018
Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

experiments cannot replace a proof no matter how natural and obvious the
conjecture is that they support.

Mathematical proof is fundamentally a matter of rigor. This means that theorems

follow from axioms by means of systematic reasoning.

FOR CLASSROOM VIEWING (4:38 minutes) :

Here’s a video that will demonstrate the importance of proof in mathematics.

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/scott-kennedy-how-to-prove-a-mathematical-theory

An axiomatic system is consistent if there is no statement such that both the

statement and its negation are axioms or theorems of the system. That is, these
axioms must not contradict one another.

Example 1

Consider the following monkey-and-tree axiomatic system with the following axioms,
whose undefined terms are monkey, tree, and climb.

Axiom 1: There are exactly three monkeys.

Axiom 2: Every monkey climbs at least two trees.

Axiom 3: No tree is climbed by more than two monkeys.

The negations of the respective axioms are as follows:

Negation of Axiom 1: The number of monkeys is either less than three

or more than three.

Negation of Axiom 2: There is a monkey which climbs less than two

trees.

Negation of Axiom 3: There is a tree that is climbed by at most two

monkeys.

Since the respective negations are not axioms or cannot be proven from the given
axioms, then the monkey-and-tree axiomatic system is consistent.

CLASSROOM ACTIVITY (15 minutes):

Consider the monkey-and-tree axiomatic system of the previous example. Prove

that the following assertion follows logically from the axioms:

Page 5 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

If every tree is climbed by only one monkey, then there are at least six trees.

An interpretation of an axiomatic system is any assignment of specific meanings to

the undefined terms of that system. If an axiom becomes a true statement when its
undefined terms are interpreted in a specific way, then we say that the interpretation
satisfies the axiom. A model of an axiomatic system is an interpretation that
satisfies all the axioms of the system.

There are two types of models: concrete models and abstract models. A model
is concrete if the meanings assigned to the undefined terms are objects and
relations adapted from the real world. A model is abstract if the meanings assigned
to the undefined terms are objects and relations adapted from another axiomatic
development.

A model for an axiomatic system makes its ideas more realistic, just as an
architect’s model of a building makes the design ideas more concrete and visible.
There are usually many things not specified by the axioms, so a variety of models
may be possible.

Example 2

Find a model for the following cat-and-mouse axiomatic system:

Undefined terms: cat, mouse, catch

Axiom 1: All cats catch mice.

Axiom 2: Some mice do not catch cats.

Axiom 3: There are at least two cats.

Solution:

Let us replace “cats” by “1, 3”; “mice” by “2, 5” and define “catch” as follows: “x
catches y provided x + y is even”.

(1) Cat 1 catches mice 5 since 1 + 5 = 6 is even. Cat 3 catches mice 5 since 3 +
5 = 8 is even. So “All cats catch mice” is true.
(2) Mice 2 does not catch cat 1, since 2 + 1 = 3 is not even, and mice 2 does not
catch cat 3 since
2 + 3 = 5 is not even. Therefore “Some mice do not catch cats” is true.
(3) “There are at least two cats” is true since we have replaced cats by two
numbers 1 and 3.

Since the interpretations satisfy the axioms, then we say that a model for the cat-
mouse-catch axiomatic system can be constructed as follows:

Page 6 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Let cat mean “one of the numbers 1, or 3”; let mice mean “one of the
numbers 2, or 5”; and define catch to mean “x catches y provided x + y is
even”.

Example 3

Consider the following giraffe axiomatic system.

Undefined terms: giraffe, taller

Axiom 1: If p and q are distinct giraffes, then either p is taller than q or q

is taller than p.

Axiom 2: Given any giraffe, there is a taller giraffe.

Axiom 3: There is a giraffe that is not taller than any giraffe.

Find a model for this axiomatic system.

Solution:

If we replace “giraffe” by counting numbers, “taller” by greater then we obtain the

following interpretation of Axioms 1, 2, and 3:

(1) If p and q are distinct counting numbers, then either p is greater than q or q
is greater than p.
(2) Given any counting number, there is a greater counting number.
(3) There is a counting number that is not greater than any counting number.

We now show that Axioms 1, 2, and 3 are true statements by showing that
Statements (1), (2), and (3) are true statements.

Given any two (real) numbers m and n, only one of the following relationships holds:
m = n, m > n, or

m < n. This is known as the Trichotomy Property of the set of real numbers.

If p and q are distinct, then p ≠ q. Thus, by the Trichotomy Property, p > q, or p < q,
which, equivalently, is written as q > p. Hence Statement (1) is true.

Suppose we are given an arbitrary counting number, say, n. Now n + 1 > n, where
n + 1 is also a counting number. Thus, given any counting number, there is a
greater counting number. So Statement (2) is true.

1 is a counting number that is not greater than itself; and it is not greater than 2, 3,
and so on. So there is a counting number, which is 1, that is not greater than any
counting number. Therefore, Statement (3) is true.
Page 7 of 24 July 2018
Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

So the following axiomatic system is a model for the giraffe system:

Undefined terms: counting numbers, greater

Axiom 1. If p and q are distinct counting numbers, then either p is

greater than q or q is greater than p.

Axiom 2. Given any counting number, there is a greater counting

number.

Axiom 3. There is a counting number that is not greater than any

counting number.

Example 4

A model of an axiomatic system can be in the form of a diagram. Consider the

following ant-and-path axiomatic system:

Undefined terms: ant, path, has

Axiom 1. Every ant has at least two paths.

Axiom 2. Every path has at least two ants.

Axiom 3. There exists at least one ant.

If we let a dot represent an ant and a segment represent a path, then the diagrams
in Fig. 2 represent concrete models for the ant-and-path axiomatic system.

Fig. 2. Concrete models for the ant-and-path axiomatic system

ACTIVITY (15 minutes):

Find a model for the given axiom system:

Undefined terms: gump, lump, bump

Axioms:

(a) Every gump bumps at least one lump.

(b) Not every lump bumps a gump.

Page 8 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

(c) There are at least three gumps.

(d) No lump bumps exactly one gump.

An axiomatic system is consistent if we can find a model for the axioms - a choice
of objects that satisfy the axioms. Any system containing contradictory axioms is
inconsistent and is of no practical value at all.

Example 5

The giraffe system, the cat-mouse-catch system, and the ant-and-path system are
examples of consistent systems.

Example 6

Consider the following axiomatic system with

Undefined terms: A, B, match

Axiom 1: A matches B.

Axiom 2: A does not match B.

Clearly this is an example of an axiomatic system because it is a collection of

statements about undefined terms; yet common sense tells us that something is
wrong. Axiom 2 is the negation of Axiom 1, thus, regardless of the interpretations
we assign to A and B, one of the axioms must be true and the other false.
However, because they are axioms of the system, Axioms 1 and 2 must be true
within the system. In other words, this axiomatic system is useless because there
can be no interpretation that will preserve the truth of the axioms, so there are no
models. Hence the system is inconsistent.

Example 7

Prove that the following point-and-line axiomatic system is inconsistent:

Undefined terms: point, line, on

Axiom 1: Any two points are on exactly one line.

Axiom 2: There are exactly four points.

Axiom 3: Every line in on exactly two points.

Axiom 4: There are exactly five lines.

Page 9 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Proof:

Let us label the four points of Axiom 2 by p, q, r, and s. By Axiom 1, there must be
lines on each of the pairs of points p-q, p-r, p-s, q-r, q-s, r-s. By Axiom 3, no line is
on three points; so each of these six pairs must be on six distinct lines, which
contradicts Axiom 4. Since the axioms are contradictory, then this axiomatic system
is inconsistent. ■

We say that the axiomatic system is complete if it is possible to prove or disprove

any statement about the objects in the system from the axioms alone. We can
verify that an axiomatic system is complete by showing that there is essentially one
model for it (that is, all models are isomorphic).

In 1900, a famous mathematician named David Hilbert set out a list of 23 unsolved
mathematical problems to focus the direction of research in the 20th Century. Many
of these problems remain unsolved to this day. Hilbert’s Second Problem
challenged mathematicians to prove that mathematics itself could be reduced to a
consistent set of axioms that was complete. In other words, the problem was to find
axioms from which all mathematical truths could be proven.

In 1930, a mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved the Incompleteness

Theorem. Basically, the theorem says that in any “sufficiently complex” consistent
axiomatic system, there must exist true statements that cannot be proven. Here
“sufficiently complex” basically means anything robust enough to be able to
describe arithmetic (including addition and multiplication, prime numbers, divisibility,
etc.). So Hilbert’s Second Problem was solved, but certainly not in the way he
intended. By Gödel’s theorem, we now know that mathematics necessarily contains
true statements for which a proof can never be found.

FOR CLASSROOM VIEWING (6:53 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrKLy4VN-7k

In this video, we look into Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, and what they mean
for math.

But what does it mean for a statement to be true but not provable? Consider the
following example.

Example 8

In mathematics, a conjecture is a conclusion or proposition based on incomplete

information, for which no proof has been found. One famous conjecture is the

Twin Primes Conjecture: There are an infinite number of pairs of primes whose
difference is 2.

Page 10 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Some examples of “twin” primes are 3 and 5, 5 and 7, 11 and 13, 101 and 103, etc.
Computers have

found very large pairs of twin primes, but so far no one has been able to prove this
theorem. It is possible that a proof will never be found. In fact, in 2004, a proof was
claimed to have been discovered, but a serious flaw in the proof was found and the
problem remains unsolved.

FOR CLASSROOM VIEWING (2:31 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b4u3SwUIe4

Song inspired by the Twin Primes Conjecture.

In specifying axioms in axiomatic system, we avoid stating the same axiom twice or
giving as an axiom any statement that can be proved from the other axioms of the
system because such a statement does not add new information to the system.
The inclusion of such a statement as an axiom is superfluous or redundant.

Definition

An Axiom A in a consistent system is said to be independent if the axiomatic

system formed by replacing A with its negation is also consistent. An axiom is
dependent if it is not independent. An axiomatic system is independent if each of
its axioms is independent.

The concept of classifying a statement as independent or dependent is not

restricted to the axioms. If a statement or its negation could be added to a set of
axioms to produce a consistent axiomatic system, then that statement is
independent. If a statement or its negation is inconsistent with a set of axioms then
it is dependent.

To show that an axiom (or any other statement) in a consistent system is

independent, we find a model for which the axiom is false while all the other axioms
are true. It should be recalled that the negation of a statement is true if and only if
the original statement is false.

To prove an entire axiomatic system is independent, we need to show that each

axiom is independent. This requires a different model for each axiom, so that each
one, in turn, can be modelled as false while the others are modelled as true. These
models, together with a model for which all the axioms are true, form a proof of the
consistency and independence of an axiom system.

Example 9

Consider the following box-and-crate axiomatic system:

Undefined terms: box, crate, in

Page 11 of 24 July 2018
Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Axiom 1: There are exactly four boxes.

Axiom 2: There is at least one crate.

Axiom 3: Every box is in at least two crates.

Axiom 4: Not all boxes are in the same crate.

i. Prove that the system is consistent.

ii. Prove that three of the four axioms are independent.

Solution:

i. Consider a model for the system by replacing boxes with “1, 2, 3, 4”; crates
with “{1, 2, 3}, {1, 4}, {2, 4}, {3, 4}”; in with “an element of”. It can easily be
shown that all the axioms are satisfied with this model. Hence the system is
consistent.

ii. Consider a model for the system by replacing boxes with “1, 2, 3”; crates with
“{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2, 3}”; in with “an element of”. Notice that Axiom 1 is false
because there are 3 boxes. There are three crates so Axiom 2, which states
that there is at least one crate, is true. Box 1 is in crates {1, 2} and {1, 3}; box
2 is in crates {1, 2} and {2, 3}; box 3 is in crates {1, 3} and {2, 3}. So Axiom 3
is true. Note also that not all boxes are in the same crate. Hence, Axiom 4 is
true. Since in this model Axiom1 is false while the rest of the axioms are
true, then we say that Axiom 1 is independent. Similarly, it can be shown
that Axiom 3 (boxes: 1, 2, 3, 4; crate: {1, 2}) and Axiom 4 (boxes: 1, 2, 3, 4;
crates: {1, 2}, {3, 4}, {1, 2, 3, 4}) are also independent.

Independence is not a necessary requirement for an axiomatic system; whereas,

consistency is necessary. For example, in high school geometry courses, theorems
which are long and difficult to prove are usually taken as axioms/postulates. Hence
in most high school geometry courses, the axiom sets are usually not independent.

An axiomatic system is categorical if we can show that there is essentially only one
model for it (all models are isomorphic).

CLASSROOM ACTIVITY (15 minutes):

Consider the following axiom system:

Undefined terms: letter, envelope, contain

Axioms:

(a) There are at least two envelopes.

Page 12 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

(b) Each envelope contains exactly three letters.

(c) No letter is contained in all the envelopes.

1. Prove that the system is consistent.

2. Prove that Axiom (b) is independent.

3. Which of the following assertions are logically equivalent to Axiom (c)?

(a) There is a letter contained in two different envelopes.

(b) There is an envelope that does not contain any letter.
(c) There is an envelope that does not contain all the letters.
(d) If l is a letter, then it is not contained in every envelope.
(e) If l is a letter, then it is contained in some envelopes, but not in all
envelopes.
(f) If l is a letter, then there is some envelope that does not contain l.

4.1.4 Theorems

Statements that are derived from the axioms by strict logical proof are called
theorems.

Example 10

Consider again the following ant-and-path axiomatic system.

Axiom 1. Every ant has at least two paths.

Axiom 2. Every path has at least two ants.

Axiom 3. There exists at least one ant.

a. What are the undefined terms in the axiom set?

b. Prove the following theorems.

Theorem 1. There exists at least one path.

Theorem 2. There are exactly two paths.

Solution:

a. The undefined terms are ant, path, has. Ant and path are elements, while
has is a relation, indicating a relationship between ant and path.

b.1. Proof.

Page 13 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

By Axiom 3, there exists at least one ant. Since, by Axiom 1, every ant has
at least two paths, then there exists at least one path. ■

b.2. Proof.

By Axiom 3, there exists an ant. Let us call this ant A1. So by Axiom 1, A1
must have two paths, say P1 and P2. Hence, there are at least two paths.
By Axiom 2, path P1 must have an ant other than A1, say A2. By Axiom 1,
A2 must have another path, say P2. So we have a model where ants A1 and
A2 are both assigned to paths P1 and P2. Axiom 1 is satisfied since A1 and
A2 each have both P1 and P2. Axiom 2 is satisfied since P1 and P2 each
have both A1 and A2.

Axiom 3 is satisfied since we have two ants. Hence we have exactly two
paths. ■

Example 11

Let us examine another example with the following axioms, where the undefined
terms are road, town, and stop sign.

Axiom 1. There is at least one road in the town.

Axiom 2. Every stop sign is on exactly two roads.

Axiom 3. Every road has exactly two stop signs on it.

We wish to prove that there is at least one stop sign in the town.

Proof

It is helpful to construct a model, that is, a physical interpretation of the undefined

terms that satisfies all the axioms (see Fig. 3). Let a shaded circl represent a stop
sign (labelled A, B, C) and a straight segment represent a road (labelled 1, 2, 3).

A
1
2
B
C 3

Fig. 3. cA model for the axiom system in Example 11

Page 14 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Axiom 1 states that there must be at least one road in the town, and Axiom 3 says
that every road has exactly two stop signs on it. Hence, there must be at least one
stop sign in the town. ■

Note that from this set of axioms we could have derived other conclusions, but we
only derived the desired conclusion

Example 12

Although ant, path, road, town, and stop sign were used as undefined terms in
Examples 10 and 11, other words could be substituted to give an equally
meaningful interpretation of the structure. For example, ant, town, and stop sign
could be substituted for point; road and path for line. So axioms would now read as
follows.

Axiom 1. There exist exactly three distinct points.

Axiom 2. Each two distinct points are on exactly one line.

Axiom 3. Not all the points are on the same line.

Axiom 4. Each two distinct lines are on at least one point.

In Axiom 4, two lines with a common point are called intersecting lines.

a. What kinds of models could be used to represent the given axiomatic

system?

b. Prove the following theorems.

Theorem 3. Each two distinct lines are on exactly one point.

Theorem 4. There are exactly three lines.

Solution:

a.

Fig. 3. Four different but equivalent models for the given axiomatic system.

Page 15 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

b. Theorem 3 Each two distinct lines are on exactly one point.

Proof.

By Axiom 4, two distinct lines are on at least one point. Assume two lines lie
on more than one point. If lines l and m are on points P and Q, then Axiom 2
is contradicted, since P and Q would be on two lines, l and m. ■

Theorem 4 There are exactly three lines.

Proof.

From Axiom 2, each pair of points is on exactly one line. Each possible pair
of points is on a distinct line, so the system has at least three lines. Suppose
there is a fourth line. From Axiom 1, there are only three points in the
system. This fourth line must have a point in common with each of the other
three lines, by Theorem 3, so that it must also be on two of the three points,
which contradicts Axiom 2. Therefore, there can be no more than three lines
in the system. ■

In the past, mathematicians like Euclid used to write Q.E.D. at the end of a proof to
say job done – it’s an abbreviation for the Latin quod erat demonstrandum (which
was to be demonstrated). Sometimes they place a small rectangle with its shorter
side horizontal. They call it a tombstone, meaning the death of suspicion of the
validity of the statement that was to be proved. Nowadays, they use a filled-in
square ■. This is called a halmos for Paul Halmos who introduced it.

4.2 Axiomatic Systems and Society

One of the most striking examples of the axiomatic form in a nonmathematical

setting appears in a major work of the seventeenth-century Dutch philosopher
Benedict de Spinoza. Although Jewish by birth, Spinoza’s independence of thought
resulted in his excommunication from Judaism at the age of twenty-three. He
devoted most of his life to the study of philosophy, supporting himself (modestly) as
a lens maker. Spinoza’s Ethics, published in 1677 (the year of his death), is
constructed in five parts, each consisting of a list of definitions, a set of axioms, and
a number of propositions derived from the axioms. For example, “Part 1.
Concerning God,” defines eight technical terms, including cause of itself, substance,
attribute, and eternity. Here is how “God” is defined:

VI. By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in

infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.

The text then gives seven axioms, one of which is:

VII. If a thing can be conceived as non—existing, its essence does not involve
existence.

Page 16 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Thirty-six propositions are then deduced from that beginning, including the
necessary existence of God. Spinoza’s philosophy is a classic example of the
pervasive nature of the axiomatic form. It was Spinoza’s intention to do in
philosophy what Euclid had done in geometry – to express a set of basic statements
(axioms) that the reader should find so compelling as to be undeniable, and to
follow them with a step-by-step logical development of inescapable consequences.

HOME READING ASSIGNMENT:

The following site provides an e-copy of Spinoza’s “Ethics” published in 1677 which
gives an example of an axiomatic system in a nonmathematical setting
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm.

Study how the thirty-six propositions are proved using the definitions and axioms.

There other uses of axiomatic form outside of mathematics. In the late eighteenth
century, a group of men gathered together to fashion a brief political document.
Although they did not use the word axiom in stating their premises, they surely
thought of them that way.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed.

Euclid may or may not have agreed with these assertions, but he would certainly
have understood their form. These are the axioms from which one can logically
derive necessary propositions. Notice that several distinct models of government,
such as a confederation of states, a republic, or a democracy, could fit these
axioms. The only logical conclusion for the framers of this axiomatic system was
that their society must become free and independent states.

One might argue that any human society – family, club, nation, and world –
determines its operational rules, however formal or informal, on the basis of
fundamental principles, stated or understood. These are the axioms and theorems,
and the resulting society is merely a model of that axiom system. In some instances
the principles are written down, as in the Declaration of Independence or the
Constitution of (Philippines, etc.); in others they are not. Sometimes those
fundamentals seem to change and evolve with the agreement of the society. Some
social change results from the discovery that certain rules are not axiomatic, but are
only accidental properties of one model. In this political society (Philippines, the
Unites States of America, etc.), we have a group of individuals whose explicit
charge is to safeguard our axiom system, the Constitution, by confirming
modifications of our model that conform to the axioms and discarding those th1at do
not. This group is called the Supreme Court.

Page 17 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Reading list:

1. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Full text of the US Declaration of Independence)

2. http://www.dotr.gov.ph/images/front/GAD/issuances/1987constitution.pdf
1987 Constitution of the Philippines

4.3 Abstraction and the Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Many people consider the word abstract to be synonymous to the words “vague” or
"hard to understand”; but in fact, its meaning is quite different. Its literal meaning is
derived from Latin and is better reflected in our use of the verb to abstract, which
means to “pull out of” or “to separate from”. Thus, the adjective abstract is used to
indicate some property of a thing that is considered apart from that thing’s other
characteristics.

The abstraction process is a way of simplifying a situation by focusing directly on a

specific aspect of it, separating its essential features from other facts that might
confuse the issue.

The word abstraction has been known to cause fear, discomfort and can be
terrifying to some. Let us examine what this process really means and put the fear
aside by considering the following examples.

Example 13

From arithmetic, we know that 5 . 3 = 15, 6 . 2 = 12, 7 . 1 = 7, and 8 .

0 = 0.

This list of data has many features. For instance, we might observe that

all digits except 4 and 9 were used, or that

the product are alternately odd and even, or that

all the numerals are printed with the same size-type, or that

the sum of the two factors is 8 in each case.

All these observations are true, however they may distract us from some more
important ones. From the given information, observe that in each case, 4 is “in the
middle of” the two numbers being multiplied. So we can write the products as:

(4 + 1)(4 – 1) = 5.3 = 15 = 16 -1 = 42 - 12

Page 18 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

(4 + 2)(4 – 2) = 6.2 = 12 = 16 -4 = 42 - 22

(4 + 3)(4 – 3) = 7.1 = 7 = 16 -9 = 42 - 32

(4 + 4)(4 – 4) = 8.0 = 0 = 16 -16 = 42 - 42

A closer look at these facts written in this form suggests a general observation about
the behaviour of numbers, which can be written in the following abstract form:

If two numbers are equidistant from and on opposite sides of 4, then their
product equals 16 minus the square of their distance d from 4, that is, (4 +
d).(4 – d) = 42 – d2.

The use of the symbol d in place of the various specific distances unifies the four
specific cases and brings a certain pattern into focus. Moreover, the equation (4 +
d).(4 – d) = 42 – d2 suggests that the number 4 might not be crucial to the behaviour
of such products. This leads us to an even more general form which you may
remember from high school:

For any numbers x and y, (x + y) (x – y) = x2 – y2.

This example typifies much of what is called algebra in high school. High school
algebra is little more than symbolized arithmetic. Various methods for manipulating
numbers and the basic arithmetic operations +, -, x, and ÷ are abstracted (pulled
out) by using letters to stand for numbers.

The use of letters (symbols, or variables) makes it easier for us to focus on the
general rules that describe the behaviour of our number system. This area of
mathematics is sometimes called “classical algebra”. It might also be appropriately
called “abstract arithmetic”.

CLASSROOM ACTIVITY (5 minutes):

Write three specific instances for the given abstract formula. Assume x, y, and z
represent numbers of some kind. Work out the arithmetic to verify that your
examples are true statements.

1. (x + y) + (x – y) = 2x
2. (-x)(-y)(-z) = (-x)(y)(z)

Example 14

If we look at the familiar arithmetic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication,

and division, we see that they share a common characteristic:

Page 19 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

all these operations are ways of assigning an “answer” number to two

numbers.

For instance, addition assigns 8 to 2 and 6 (since 2 + 6 = 8); multiplication assigns

12 to 2 and 6 (since 2 . 6 = 12).

To abstract this idea from its numerical setting, we begin with the idea of an
ordered pair, a pair of elements (of any kind) in which the first element is
distinguishable from the second. We write (x, y) to denote the ordered pair in which
x is the first element and y is the second. If x and y are different, the ordered pairs
(x, y) and (y, x) are different. It now becomes easy to state a useful abstract
definition of an operation, as follows.

An operation on a set S is any rule or process that assigns to each ordered

pair of elements of S exactly one element of that set S.

We generally use * as the symbol for an operation on a set, although other symbols
will be used as well. The element of the set that the operation * assigns to the
ordered pair (x, y) will be written as x*y.

The operation on a set may be described by means of an operation table. Tables 1

and 2 define two operations * and « that can be defined on the set {a, b}.

* a b
a a b
b b a

Table 1

« a b
a a a
b a b

Table 2

In Table 1, we have a*a = a, a*b = b, b*a = b, and b*b = a, while Table 2 gives a«a
= a, a«b = a, b«a = a, and b«b = a.

The conceptual unity that results from the abstraction process is one of the most
significant features of modern mathematics as a whole.

Example 15

The following situations illustrate the unifying effect that results from the abstraction
process:
Page 20 of 24 July 2018
Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

a. A 3-way light has four switch positions: low, medium, high, and off. Each
time the light switch is turned, the light goes from one of these settings to the
next, in order. Each “click” of the switch signals a movement from one level
of brightness to the next; with the fourth click the light is off, with the fifth it is
at low again, and so on.

b. A square tile works loose from its position in a bathroom floor. Its shape
allows it to be put back in any of four ways: exactly as it was originally, or
rotated (clockwise) 90o, or 180o, or 270o. (A 360o rotation puts it back to its
original position). Even if it has been kicked for a while, whatever way it is
put back must correspond to one of these quarter turns relative to its original
position.

Some common features of these two different situations are as follows:

1. Each involves four “things” – brightness levels, tile positions.

2. We can go from each to the next in succession until we return to a “starting

point” – off, original position.

3. A common structure emerges. In each case, we go from one “thing” to

another by steps in a

cyclic pattern; moreover, if we take more than three steps we will have “gone
around” the cycle completely and will have started over. For example, 5
switch clicks from off gets us to low again – which is the same as 1 click; 6
switch clicks from off gets us to medium again – which is the same as 2
clicks; 7 quarter turns of the tile puts it in the same position as 3 quarter
turns; and so on.

The numbers of the steps that take us to the different positions in each situation,
then, form the set

{0, 1, 2, 3}. If we follow any of these step numbers the result would be one of these
four numbers. For example, 2 steps following 3 steps is equivalent to 1 step, 3
steps following 1 step is equivalent to 0 step, etc. If we denote by f the process
“followed by”, we can tabulate all possible combinations of these four step numbers:

0f0=0 0f1=1 0f2=2 0f3=3

1f0=1 1f1=2 1f2=3 1f3=0

2f0=2 2f1=3 2f2=0 2f3=1

3f0=3 3f1=0 3f2=1 3f3=2

Table 3

Page 21 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

which can be put in an operation table shown in Table 4:

f 0 1 2 3
0 0 1 2 3
1 1 2 3 0
2 2 3 0 1
3 3 0 1 2

Table 4

This example illustrates the value of abstraction. The process unifies the different
situations by focusing on (abstracting) some particular properties those situations
have in common, so that a single study of the abstract properties can give us
information about all the “different” situations at the same time.

CLASSROOM ACTIVITY (5 minutes):

Write a general expression using letters to abstract a general form from the given
set of numerical data.

1. 2.3=3+3
2.5=5+5
2 . 14 = 14 + 14
2 . 27 = 27 + 27

2. 2.3+2.5=2.8
7 . 12 + 7 . 8 = 7 . 20
5 . 40 + 5 . 2 = 5 . 42
3.1+3.1=3.2

CLASSROOM ACTIVITY (5 minutes):

Find and describe three real-life situations with a common underlying structure that
is described in the following table:

* 0 1
0 0 1
1 1 0

Page 22 of 24 July 2018

Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Concluding remarks:

In this module we have discussed axiomatic systems and abstractions.

We learned that axioms are simple forms of statements which cannot be further
broken down without philosophical considerations. These axioms play two major
roles in mathematics: they describe undefined terms (such as line, point, etc.), and
they provide us with a starting point to prove conjectures.

An axiomatic system is a collection of axioms such that each axiom is independent

from the others – that is, no axiom can be proven from any other axiom in the set.
The axioms that we are most familiar with are those within Euclidean geometry. In
Euclidean geometry there is a system of five essential postulates (which are
synonymous to axioms) called Euclid's Postulates. These postulates are the
building blocks which are used to prove every theorem of Euclidean geometry, that
is, everything can be traced back to these five axioms.

We also have seen how abstraction works in mathematics. Abstraction is a

powerful tool in applied science; it reduces the amount of effort required to analyse
things with similar characteristics and sometimes suggests unsuspected
connections among seemingly different phenomena.

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR MODULE 3:

Write a paper about axiom systems, constructed according to the following outline:

(1) Describe informally a real-life situation you know involving sports, a game, an
organization, a political structure, your dorm, a class, or anything else that
involves rules or procedures.

(2) Describe some aspect of that situation formally by means of an axiom system
consisting of three or four basic terms and three or four axioms. Keep the
axioms simple!

(3) Rework your axiom system, if necessary, to insure that

i. the system is consistent and

ii. all the axioms are independent.

Prove these two assertions.

(4) State a least one theorem and prove it from the axioms.

(5) Treating the basic terms of your axiom system as undefined, find an
interpretation for the system that is different than the one you started with.
Page 23 of 24 July 2018
Axiomatic Systems, Abstraction and Use of Symbols in Mathematics

Confirm the difference by stating a property of the basic terms in the original
situation that is not shared by the basic terms in your new interpretation.

REFERENCES:

1. Berlinghoff, W., Grant, K., and Skrien, D.: A Mathematics Sampler: Topics
for the Liberal Arts. Ardsley House, Publishers, Inc., New York. C1996.

2. Setek, W., Jr.: Fundamentals of Mathematics. Macmillan. 3rd ed.

Page 24 of 24 July 2018