If mathematics is true because it is derived from axioms...

If mathematics is true because it is derived from axioms, so is austrian economics with praxeology (derived from the action axiom).

Checkmate.

>If mathematics is true because it is derived from axioms
Right lads, we have a brainlet

Prove me wrong kiddo

Mathematics is only as true as the axioms that it is derived from, being derived from axioms does not imply any truth. Certain axioms, for example, are completely untrue and will invoke the explosion principle. Certain axioms don't have to "be true" for mathematics to work, you just get a different mathematical picture. See the parallel postulate and Hyperbolic geometry.
>Checkmate
For a board dedicated to science and math, some of the posters are pretty shit at math

a statement using the principles of an axiom do not necessarily make said statement immediately true, even if the axiom is of course self evidently true

or does it ?

If all the axioms are true, then all statements made from them are necessarily true. All statements made from false axioms are necessarily false.

>being derived from axioms does not imply any truth.

Yes it does, go back to /pol/ m8

Websters

Axoim:

a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.


In mathematics axioms are often true but not necessarily true, it is not a requirement that they are. Axioms can be false and conclusions based on them would be as well.

no. axioms are ASSUMED true.

Axioms are true by definition, you must be an engineer.

MATHEMATICS IS ONLY TRUE IF THE AXIOMS UPON WHICH ALL OF ITS THEOREMS ARE DERIVED ARE TRUE, BUT YOU STILL CAN'T PROVE THOSE AXIOMS TO BE TRUE BECAUSE YOU WOULD NEED OTHER AXIOMS TO DO THAT, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE AXIOMS ARE AXIOMS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE PROVEN FROM SIMPLER AXIOMS

Yeah, i can assume i will win a million dollars tomorrow, but this axiom, while assumed is plainly false. I can assume it though to ecplore the imomications of me coming into so much money, evenas it is false. Assuming truth =/= objective truth

Have you taken a logic course before?
I just cant tell if youre trolling or legitimately misguided.

this

axioms are true by definition. I could have a set of axioms where a negative times a negative number is a negative. its equally as true as what is used today

to clarify. they're assumed true

Being derived from a set of axioms makes it consistent in those axioms, not globally true.

Seconded

If the set of axioms are true, then the system will be globally true.

they cant be proven true its impossible. thats why they're assumed true

There are tenants of austrian economics that are demonstrably false, but you're saying that because all of Ludwig von Mises' work is based on the action axiom, then all his subsequent economic theories are true?

Assumptions are fine but they do not quest and question before them. They "take" assumptions as fact but babble they don't. If you listen to them, they say they "know," which makes them babbling, boasting, bragging know-it-alls.

but by definition that in order for it to be an axiom, then it must be non-contradictory. If it can be objectively 'proven' false, then surely it would not be an axiom...

I never made a comment about the validity of anyones theories, I said that if ALL of the axioms are true then the result that follows must be true, and if ANY of them are false then it must be false, so using your information my logic would suggest that it is false then wouldn't it?
Reading is hard isn't it?

You made a broad statement that since Austrian economics is based on axioms (like all other theories of economics), it must be true. That statement would imply the truth of this theory regardless of truth of axioms. Maybe you should learn how to actually communicate what you meant? Or maybe you don't even know what you mean?

The way logic is formalised, you choose a set of propositions as axioms (it's called a theory).
Then if these propositions are contradictory, then your theory is useless.

So yeah we could say axioms require to be non-contradictory, but no one cares since it's totally uninteresting.

i'm austrian, was geht hier vor sich?

No, you didn't understand what I said. There is no "truth". The only thing we have is consistency. "True" and "False" are concepts used to identify if something is, or is not.

I'll rephrase OP:

Assuming praxeology is a valid axiom for the human world, and austrian economics being derived from, we can say that austrian economics is true.

Then we are not using the same meaning for the word axiom.
I'm using the meaning that an axiom is an apriori truth.