This level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

MathematicsHigh‑priority This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofmathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics High This article has been rated asHigh-priority on theproject's priority scale. Philosophy:LogicHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic History of ScienceHigh‑importance This article is part of theHistory of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize thehistory of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion. You can also help with theHistory of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Hello community,

while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are substantive assertions about the elements of the domain of a specific mathematical theory, such as arithmetic.

I think additive commutative law are not considered as an axiom but an theory derived from the Peano Axiom? I did found some of the people call it an "axiom" in arithmetic. However, in early undergraduate analysis courses, it's often used as an example of basic reasoning to derive some laws in natural numbers from Peano Axiom. I doubt if it's a good example here.Alexliyihao (talk)02:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only appearance ofcommutative is in#Non-logical axioms, where the context isgroup theory. ThePeano postulates are not relevant in that context. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)13:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC) theory.[reply]

Commutativity of addition is a theorem in Peano theory, seethese course notes.Paradoctor (talk)12:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to group theory? The article is about axioms, not about theorems.

As I said,ThePeano postulates are not relevant in that context.

As an illustration of the importance of context,arithmetic#Axiomatic foundations discusses two approaches, in one of which the Peano Postulates are themselves theorems. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)13:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same encyclopedia? It saysnowhere that the Peano axiom are theorems in some set theory!

You also appear to misunderstand the point Alexliyihao made: the lead uses commutativity of addition as an example of a non-logical axiom, which is misleading. Arithemic is normally axiomatized using the Peano axioms, or some set-theoretic model thereof. There, commutativity of addition is a theorem. Surely we ought to do better?Paradoctor (talk)13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I never claimed that thewiki article said that. Many elementary course inSet theory derive the Peano postulate from the definition of${\displaystyle \mathbb{N}}$ from the construction mentioned inarithmetic#Axiomatic foundations.

the point Alexliyihao made is bogus, because it ignored the context and the wording. The textFor example, in some groups, the group operation is commutative, is clearly talking aboutGroup theory,not about the Peano postulates. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)15:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what are you reading?!? Alexlihiyao did not talk about group theory, never mentioned it. That's something you imported here. All he did is criticize the use of commutativity of addition as an example of a non-logical axiomin the lead, where it is connected toarithmetic.That is the context we're talking about.Paradoctor (talk)16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmetic is not the same as Peano arithmetic. It's perfectly possible to consider commutativity of addition as an axiom of arithmetic; it would be a different set of axioms, but the same subject matter. I think you're over-focusing on a particular axiomatization, which isn't mentioned at the point in question in the text. --Trovatore (talk)19:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I focus on the most likey interpretation, given that we're not a specialty encyclopedia. Anyway, I finally found out what tripped up Chatul: The lead does not properly represent the article. I took the liberty of fixing that. Unless someone has a better idea, that should conclude this discussion.— Precedingunsigned comment added byParadoctor (talk •contribs)19:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The most likely interpretation" of arithmetic is hardly the Peano axioms; that's a much more "specialty" notion than arithmetic per se.

In any case, your new text is problematic because commutativity is not an axiom of group theory, and also because we shouldn't be assuming that people know about group theory at this point in the article. --Trovatore (talk)19:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could replace it witha + 0 = a, maybe? --Trovatore (talk)19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD:The lead should [...] summarize the body of the article

Commutativity for groups is the first example mentioned in§ Non-logical axioms, and the only one mentioned in its introduction. Neutral element of addition is not mentioned at all.

not an axiom of group theory It is in the theory of commutative groups. So we add a word.Paradoctor (talk)20:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the lead should generally summarize the body, but we don't have to be ultra-rigid about it. If it's useful to put an example in the lead that doesn't appear in the body, I think that's fine. And I don't think we should mention groups in the lead; too specific for the general article about axioms. --Trovatore (talk)20:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🤦Paradoctor (talk)21:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what are you reading?!? Obviously, the comments relating toAxiom#Non-logical axioms,NOT TO THE LEAD.

Alexlihiyao did not talk about group theory,. The text in contention,For example, in some groups, the group operation is commutative, and this can be asserted with the introduction of an additional axiom, Which part ofThe only appearance ofcommutative is in#Non-logical axioms, where the context isgroup theory. did you not understand? And, yes, there were subsequent updates to the lead, but that has nothing to do with the validity of comments posted before them.

All he did is criticize the use of commutativity of addition as an example of a non-logical axiom in the lead,. Patently false: the lead,AT THAT TIME, did not contain any such text. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)12:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it was when Alexliyihaostarted this discussion. Or you could just look at the passage they quoted.

the comments relating toAxiom#Non-logical axioms,NOT TO THE LEAD Then you're missing the point, because the discussion is about a passage from the lead.Paradoctor (talk)12:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating a bogus claim won't make it magically come true. The word commutative does not appear in the lead ofpermalink/1213388710, nor does it appear in the lead ofpermalink/1197258286. The first appearance is inAxiom##Non-logical axioms. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)20:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

paraphrase 🤦Paradoctor (talk)20:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 20th century (or maybe earlier?), "axioms" can also refer to the "properties" that define a mathematical object (for example, see the definition ofvector space).Student314 (talk)13:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SeeAxiom#Non-logical axiomsTule-hog (talk)22:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Mathematics
• C-Class vital articles in Mathematics
• C-Class mathematics articles
• High-priority mathematics articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class logic articles
• High-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• C-Class history of science articles
• High-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles