Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1311.0545

Throwing Darts at a Ruler: Unpacking the Intuition Behind Freiling's Axiom of Symmetry

Abstract

It is well-known that the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) is independent of the other axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with choice (ZFC). This raises the question of whether an intuitive justification exists for CH as an additional axiom, or conversely whether it is more intuitive to deny CH. Freiling's Axiom of Symmetry (AS) is one candidate for an intuitively justifiable axiom that, when appended to ZFC, is equivalent to the denial of CH. The intuition relies on a probabalistic argument, usually cast in terms of throwing random darts at the real line, and has been defended by researchers as well as popular writers. In this note, the intuitive argument is reviewed. Following William Abram, it is suggested that while accepting CH leads directly to a counterexample to AS, this is not necessarily fatal to our intuition. Instead, we suggest, it serves to alert us to the error in a naive intuition that leaps too readily from the near-certainty of individual events to near-certainty of a joint event.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anthony B. Morton. 2013-11-03. Throwing Darts at a Ruler: Unpacking the Intuition Behind Freiling's Axiom of Symmetry. https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0545

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Come for the vibe, stay for the math

This article describes our experiences in mathematical outreach over the past decade. We talk about specific activities, but also general principles that we've learned along the way.

math.HO

Graduate Mathematics in the Age of AI: Forming Mathematicians for Original, Independent, and Responsible Inquiry

Artificial intelligence can increasingly produce plausible, sophisticated mathematical material faster than a developing graduate student can understand or verify it. A sophisticated result or paper draft therefore becomes weaker evidence of the student's own mathematical development. This creates a formation gap between output and personal capacity, and a trust gap between a convincing argument and warranted acceptance. The formation gap can persist even when the student understands the output: understanding a supplied argument does not by itself establish the capacity to initiate and direct inquiry. These gaps are not the whole story. AI can also help students explore examples, compare approaches, enter unfamiliar areas, and undertake ambitious research. The task is to design an apprenticeship that realizes these possibilities while developing substantive mathematical command. The central purpose of a mathematics PhD is to form mathematicians capable of original, independent, and responsible inquiry, including inquiry conducted with AI. This document develops that objective through four connected capacities: competence, judgment, independence, and responsibility. It distinguishes a work's contribution to mathematics from the evidence it provides of a student's formation; explains how a known answer can initiate rather than end creative inquiry; and proposes changes in learning activities, assessment, doctoral originality, advising, and institutional support. Purposeful independent work and ambitious AI-assisted research are complementary parts of the model. Its recommendations include proportionate contribution statements, recognition of advising costs, and staged pilots evaluating both mathematical ability and effective human--AI collaboration. The aim is not to preserve an inherited sequence of training, but to improve mathematical formation as mathematical practice changes.

math.HO