Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Because consistency of ZF is not provable in ZF, the weaker notion relative consistency is interesting in set theory (and in other sufficiently expressive axiomatic systems). If T is a theory and A is an additional axiom , T + A is said to be consistent relative to T (or simply that A is consistent with T ) if it can be proved that if T is ...
If the relative velocity between an observer (or his measuring instruments) and the observed object is zero, then the proper length of the object can simply be determined by directly superposing a measuring rod. However, if the relative velocity is greater than zero, then one can proceed as follows:
Newton posited an absolute space considered well-approximated by a frame of reference stationary relative to the fixed stars. An inertial frame was then one in uniform translation relative to absolute space. However, some "relativists", [10] even at the time of Newton, felt that absolute space was a defect of the formulation, and should be ...
which makes the function-argument status of x (and by extension the constancy of a, b and c) clear. In this example a, b and c are coefficients of the polynomial. Since c occurs in a term that does not involve x, it is called the constant term of the polynomial and can be thought of as the coefficient of x 0.
Some definitions or results about relative consistency hold only in special cases. When the domains are composed of integers , bound consistency can be defined. This form of consistency is based on the consistency of the extreme values of the domains, that is, the minimum and maximum values a variable can take.
A crude sense of cardinality, an awareness that groups of things or events compare with other groups by containing more, fewer, or the same number of instances, is observed in a variety of present-day animal species, suggesting an origin millions of years ago. [4]
In mathematics, specifically set theory, the continuum hypothesis (abbreviated CH) is a hypothesis about the possible sizes of infinite sets. It states: There is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers. Or equivalently:
For example, "is a blood relative of" is a symmetric relation, because x is a blood relative of y if and only if y is a blood relative of x. Antisymmetric for all x, y ∈ X, if xRy and yRx then x = y. For example, ≥ is an antisymmetric relation; so is >, but vacuously (the condition in the definition is always false). [11] Asymmetric