45
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
45 points (95.9% liked)
Asklemmy
52774 readers
629 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
To be clear, we do not have one single system. Branches of math are built on axioms, and different branches include different axioms. Some branches are simple enough that we can prove consistency. But what if you find an inconsistent one? Then you remove one of the axioms that helped demonstrate inconsistency, and then you move on.
It's a good point. ZFC is a kind of de facto standard, though.
Using the tools of a different, more complex one. Which might itself be inconsistent.
That's not really a problem, though. There was never a guarantee we can rigorously prove everything.
It is, but the amount of math that relies explicitly on ZFC without being about ZFC is relatively little. Most people don't think about a particular formalism and the shift to a new one would likely be transparent
And how many people know or care what C does for them, anyway. It's cool, though.