Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange


The following questions (in no particular order) which I had submitted have been "Deleted by Community":

3. For flat space-time as axiomatized by John W. Schutz can the notion of "betweenness" be defined through "paths" and "events"?

The monograph "Independent axioms for Minkowski space-time" by John W. Schutz specifies as primitive undefined basis (Sec. 2.1):

  • a set $\mathcal E$ whose elements are called events,

  • a set $\mathcal P$ whose elements are called paths${}^{\text{(1)}}$, together with

  • a ternary relation on the set of events of $\mathcal E$ called a betweenness relation.

Schutz also notes (App. 4) that

It is possible to consider other alternative primitive undefined bases

laying out ([...]) the possibility of

"local betweenness" relations defined such that each path has its own betweenness relation

and (rather more elborately) the possibility

to dispense with $\mathcal P$ as a primitive concept [...] where the set of paths is then defined in much the same way as the set of lines [...] in the absolute geometries [can be defined through the] ternary betweenness relation on [the set of points.]

However, apparently Schutz doesn't give any consideration at all to a possibility of dispensing with the notion of betweenness as primitive concept, and to defining this relation instead through the given sets of events and of paths, $\mathcal E$ and $\mathcal P$.

[ Omission (char. limit). ]

My question:

Can the axiomatic system for Minkowski (flat) space-time presented by Schutz be expressed using only events and paths as undefined primitive basis? Can a suitable notion of "betweenness" be defined, at least for this purpose, as a relation involving only events and paths?

This could involve the existence of certain pairs of events for which there is no path containing${}^{\text{(2)}}$ both of them; as used in the definition of "unreachable sets" whose existence is affirmed through Axiom I5 (Non-Galileian).

Specificly: Considering any three distinct events $\varepsilon_{AP}, \varepsilon_{BP}, \varepsilon_{JP} \in \mathcal E$ which are all contained in the same path $P \in \mathcal P$, is it a theorem of the axiomatic system presented by Schutz that

  • if for each event $\varepsilon_{KQ}$ which is unreachable from $\varepsilon_{AP}$ as well as unreachable from $\varepsilon_{JP}$ it is true that event $\varepsilon_{KQ}$ is unreachable from $\varepsilon_{BP}$, too,
    then event $\varepsilon_{BP}$ is between events $\varepsilon_{AP}$ and $\varepsilon_{JP}$ ?

And first of all: Considering any two distinct events $\varepsilon_{AP}, \varepsilon_{JP} \in \mathcal E$ which are both contained in the same path $P \in \mathcal P$, is it a theorem that

  • there exists at least one event $\varepsilon_{KQ}$ which is unreachable from $\varepsilon_{AP}$ as well as from $\varepsilon_{JP}$ ?
people reached
  • Member for 3 years, 6 months
  • 24 profile views
  • Last seen Jan 31 at 21:48

Top Tags (18)

Score 0
Posts 6
Posts % 50
Score 0
Posts 4
Score 0
Posts 3
Score 0
Posts 3
Score 0
Posts 2
Score 0
Posts 1

Top Posts (12) All Questions Answers | Votes Newest

View all questions and answers

Badges (8)