Why no foundations of maths in Mellienium problems?

  • Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Foundations
In summary, there are no problems on the foundations of mathematics in the Millennium problems. The problems chosen for the Millennium Prize must have important consequences, such as the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture. Older problems like the Prime-Twin Conjecture and Goldbach's Conjecture do not have significant consequences and are therefore not included. However, there are indications that questions about set theory have important consequences in other fields of mathematics. It is not harder for a set theorist to find a job than any other mathematician. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem does not mean there are flaws in mathematics, but rather that there will always be something that cannot be proven within a consistent system. Mathematics is still considered to
  • #1
pivoxa15
2,255
1
Why isn't there a problem on the foundations of maths in the Mellinium problems?

If there was one which one would it be?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
pivoxa15 said:
Why isn't there a problem on the foundations of maths in the Mellinium problems?

If there was one which one would it be?

In order to be a Mellinium problem it must have important consequences. For example, my favorite, the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture would allow us to compute ranks of elliptic curves efficiently. However, the Prime-Twin Conjecture (which is a Mellinium problem, literally [>2000 years old]) does not lead to any important consequences. Thus, it is not not among them. For the same reason Goldbach's Conjecture is not included. It appears to me that problems from Mathematical Logic are not going to lead to big consequences ever since the works of Godel and Cohen.
 
  • #3
Perhaps the important ones have been answered? Like is CH independent of ZF etc.

I disagree with Kummer. Principally, because it is dangerous to make sweeping statements about mathematics - they almost always turn out to be wrong. However, there are certainly indications that delicate questions about set theory have important consequences in algebraic geometry, topology and representation theory. Who knows what the (increasingly important) work in o-minimal structures will tell us about sheafs, derived categories, and possibly (for those who care about such things) string theory or quantum gravity. I remember reading Jon Baez comment that it might be time for the logicians to look more closely at some of the underpinnings of mathematical physics.
 
  • #4
This might be off topic but the fact that foundations of maths isn't very popular in maths departments, does it mean it is harder for set theorists to find jobs as mathematicians?

Since Godel showed that mathematics cannot be reduced to axioms without encountering problems, why have people continued to do reserach into fuondations of maths? There can't be absolute perfection can there?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
It is no harder for a set theorist to find a job than any other mathematician - your premise would appear to be that there are as many set theorists as other kinds of mathematician.

Who says mathematics cannot be reduced to axioms without encountering problems? Certainly not Goedel (try finding out what the precise statements of his theorems are).
 
  • #6
pivoxa15 said:
There can't be absolute perfection can there?
I disagree, you got Godel's theorems wrong. One of the reason I chose mathematics many years ago is because I realized it is the only thing out there that is complete perfection.

I am not well-versed in mathematical logic but I can tell you that Godel showed. "A consistent system cannot be complete". Hence the name Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, this means if you have a consistent system (where eveything is perfect, that is the best way to put it) it cannot be complete, meaning not everything can be proven. For example, (classical example), the postulates I,II,III,IV are independent from V (of Euclid). Now the mathematical system composed of I,II,III,IV forms a consistent system. However it is not complete because V can be both true or false without leading to problems within the system (when V is false it is called non-Euclidean geometry).

This means in mathematics there is always something we cannot prove (because it is not within our system). But it does not mean math has flaws. To say something like that is completely insulting.
 

FAQ: Why no foundations of maths in Mellienium problems?

Why is there no foundation of mathematics in Millennium problems?

The Millennium problems are seven unsolved mathematical problems that were identified by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000. These problems were chosen based on their significance, difficulty, and potential impact on mathematics and science. While the foundations of mathematics are important, the focus of the Millennium problems is on specific, tangible problems that have yet to be solved.

What is the relationship between foundations of mathematics and Millennium problems?

The foundations of mathematics are the fundamental principles and concepts that underlie all of mathematics. The Millennium problems, on the other hand, are specific problems that exist within the already established foundations of mathematics. While the foundations are important for understanding and advancing mathematics, they do not dictate or limit the types of problems that can be studied.

Are there any connections between foundations of mathematics and the Millennium problems?

There are certainly connections between the foundations of mathematics and the Millennium problems. The foundations provide the framework for understanding and approaching the problems, while the problems can also inform and advance our understanding of the foundations. However, the two are distinct and have different focuses and objectives.

Why are the Millennium problems considered more important than foundations of mathematics?

The Millennium problems are not necessarily considered more important than the foundations of mathematics. They are simply different in their scope and purpose. The Millennium problems are specific, challenging problems that have significant implications for mathematics and science, while the foundations provide the framework for understanding and advancing all of mathematics.

Can the foundations of mathematics be solved through the Millennium problems?

No, the foundations of mathematics cannot be "solved" in the same way that the Millennium problems can be solved. The foundations are an ongoing and evolving area of study and research, while the Millennium problems are specific, well-defined problems that can be solved within the established foundations of mathematics. However, advancements and solutions in the Millennium problems can certainly contribute to our understanding and development of the foundations of mathematics.

Back
Top