Axiomatic set theory as a basis for the construction of mathematics

It is widely known that one of the major tasks of 'Foundations' is to construct a formal system which can he said to contain the whole of mathematics. For various reasons axiomatic set theory is a very suitable choice for such a system and it is one which has proved acceptable to both logicians and mathematicians. The particular demands of mathematicians and logicians, however, are not the same. As a result there exist at the moment two different formulations of set theory which can be roughly said to cater for logicians and mathematicians respectively. It is these systems which are the subject of this dissertation. The system of set theory constructed for logicians is by P. Bernays. This will be discussed in chapter II. For mathematicians No Bourbaki has constructed a system of set theory within which he has already embedded a large part of mathematics. This system will be discussed in chapter III. Chapter I is historical and contains some of Cantor's original ideas. The relationship between Bernays' system and (essentially) Bourbaki's system is commented upon in chapter IV. <p

On Constructive Axiomatic Method

In this last version of the paper one may find a critical overview of some recent philosophical literature on Axiomatic Method and Genetic Method.Comment: 25 pages, no figure

Doing and Showing

The persisting gap between the formal and the informal mathematics is due to an inadequate notion of mathematical theory behind the current formalization techniques. I mean the (informal) notion of axiomatic theory according to which a mathematical theory consists of a set of axioms and further theorems deduced from these axioms according to certain rules of logical inference. Thus the usual notion of axiomatic method is inadequate and needs a replacement.Comment: 54 pages, 2 figure

Axiomatic Information Thermodynamics

We present an axiomatic framework for thermodynamics that incorporates information as a fundamental concept. The axioms describe both ordinary thermodynamic processes and those in which information is acquired, used and erased, as in the operation of Maxwell's demon. This system, like previous axiomatic systems for thermodynamics, supports the construction of conserved quantities and an entropy function governing state changes. Here, however, the entropy exhibits both information and thermodynamic aspects. Although our axioms are not based upon probabilistic concepts, a natural and highly useful concept of probability emerges from the entropy function itself. Our abstract system has many models, including both classical and quantum examples.Comment: 52 pages, 5 figures. Revised 28 Mar 201

Who Cares about Axiomatization? Representation, Invariance, and Formal Ontologies

The philosophy of science of Patrick Suppes is centered on two important notions that are part of the title of his recent book (Suppes 2002): Representation and Invariance. Representation is important because when we embrace a theory we implicitly choose a way to represent the phenomenon we are studying. Invariance is important because, since invariants are the only things that are constant in a theory, in a way they give the “objective” meaning of that theory. Every scientific theory gives a representation of a class of structures and studies the invariant properties holding in that class of structures. In Suppes’ view, the best way to define this class of structures is via axiomatization. This is because a class of structures is given by a definition, and this same definition establishes which are the properties that a single structure must possess in order to belong to the class. These properties correspond to the axioms of a logical theory. In Suppes’ view, the best way to characterize a scientific structure is by giving a representation theorem for its models and singling out the invariants in the structure. Thus, we can say that the philosophy of science of Patrick Suppes consists in the application of the axiomatic method to scientific disciplines. What I want to argue in this paper is that this application of the axiomatic method is also at the basis of a new approach that is being increasingly applied to the study of computer science and information systems, namely the approach of formal ontologies. The main task of an ontology is that of making explicit the conceptual structure underlying a certain domain. By “making explicit the conceptual structure” we mean singling out the most basic entities populating the domain and writing axioms expressing the main properties of these primitives and the relations holding among them. So, in both cases, the axiomatization is the main tool used to characterize the object of inquiry, being this object scientific theories (in Suppes’ approach), or information systems (for formal ontologies). In the following section I will present the view of Patrick Suppes on the philosophy of science and the axiomatic method, in section 3 I will survey the theoretical issues underlying the work that is being done in formal ontologies and in section 4 I will draw a comparison of these two approaches and explore similarities and differences between them