Questions tagged [logic]

Questions about mathematical logic, including model theory, proof theory, computability theory (a.k.a. recursion theory), and non-standard logics. Questions which merely seek to apply logical or formal reasoning to other areas of mathematics should not use this tag. Consider using one of the following tags as well, if they fit the question: (model-theory), (set-theory), (computability), and (proof-theory). This tag is not for logical puzzles, use (puzzle).

This tag broadly covers the field of mathematical logic, which deals with questions involving formalized mathematical statements, mathematical structures, and their relationships. The development of mathematical logic in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was intertwined with the interest in foundations of mathematics (), although much current work in logic is not directly related to foundations.

The elementary content of mathematical logic involves formal mathematical languages, quantifiers, and formal proofs of statements. These formal proofs are carried out in formal proof systems (see ), which model ordinary mathematical reasoning but, unlike natural language proofs, have a fully specified syntax and grammar that could in principle be verified mechanically. Specific tags for these topics include and . The full development of these ideas happens in the field of . A well known application of proof-theoretic methods is Gödel's incompleteness theorem .

The field of studies models of formal languages. Examples include algebraic structures such as groups and rings, as well as more esoteric structures. The field focuses on definability within such structures, relative to particular formal languages.

The field of studies formalized notations of computability, such as Turing computability and hyperarithmetical computability, as well as their applications to mathematics.

The field of studies sets by considering formal axiomatic systems of set theory such as ZFC. Questions about basic topics that might be found in "Chapter 0" of an undergraduate textbook (such as unions, intersections, subsets, etc.) are classified on this site as , while the includes questions about models of ZFC, large cardinals, the method of forcing, etc. Some researchers view set theory as part of mathematical logic, while others view it as a distinct area; the logic tag is not mandatory for set theory questions.

There are other areas which overlap with mathematical logic, but are not always considered part of it. The field of has many similarities to logic, and has important foundational aspects.

The foundational aspects of logic include mathematical constructivism, which is classified here as .


This tag does not include questions about ordinary logical reasoning in mathematical proof writing. Questions that ask about the logical structure or logical methods of ordinary mathematical proofs should be labeled with the tag unless they ask about specific formal proof systems.

This tag should not be used for what a layperson might called "a logical puzzle". For these sort of questions please use and as appropriate. (Unless the solution is done via a method relevant to the logic tag, of course.)

27971 questions
1
vote
3 answers

Can you see if i made a mistake in my check for tautology?

I need to prove that the following is a tautology: [(P -> Q) ∧ ¬ Q ] -> ¬P so my solution was: [(¬P V Q) ∧ ¬Q] -> ¬P] [¬((¬P V Q) ∧ ¬Q)] V ¬P] [(¬¬P ∧ ¬Q V ¬¬ Q) V ¬P] [(P ∧ ¬Q V Q) V ¬P] The way i see the final line is that: ¬Q V Q will always…
1
vote
3 answers

How to write there exists exactly 1 x in a domain with property p without the unique quantifier?

I need to write the statement 'there exists exactly one x in a domain such that p(x) is true'. This needs to be done without using the uniqueness quantifier $\exists!$. I've been staring at this problem for a while and I honestly haven't a clue how…
1
vote
1 answer

Contrapositive of $x=2, y=3,$ then $xy=6$

Help in writing contraposition for this statement
1
vote
1 answer

How can I show that this formula is true for all interpretations?

I need to show that this formula $$(\forall x(A \to B) \to (\forall x A\to \forall x B))$$ is true for all interpretation. Could you help me please? Thank you!
fara
  • 11
1
vote
3 answers

Simple logic question but unsure how to begin

How would I go about showing this? Intuitively this is very simple, but I've never been asked to prove an $\iff$ relation with $\iff$ inside of it: $(A \iff B) \iff (\lnot A \iff \lnot B)$
John
  • 71
1
vote
1 answer

The unsatisfiability of the pigeonhole principle

Hello I just want a suggestion on how to solve this problem. Show that the formula: $A_{pigeon} = \forall x \exists y (Pxy \wedge y \neq c) \wedge \forall x,y,z (x = y \vee not Pyz \vee not Pxz)$ Is not satisfiable in any finite (nonempty) universe.…
InsigMath
  • 2,073
  • 2
  • 18
  • 27
1
vote
2 answers

How to convert expression to its NOR form

The expression I am working on is $xy'+x'y$. Is this the correct conversion to NOR? $$(x'+y)'+(x+y')'$$ Just adding for clarification the question is in an old logic notation ( think it was used by Lewis Carroll) the $'$ stands for negation the $+$…
1
vote
1 answer

Universal Generalization properties

So I am looking for a proof (it is probably simple) to : $ \vdash (\forall x)A \rightarrow A$ Any help would be appreciate !!
wantToLearn
  • 1,275
1
vote
2 answers

A question about tableau method for first-order logic

I have a doubt about tableau method for f-o logic. In Smullyan's book (First-Order Logic, 1968, Dover reprint) the method is defined (pag.53) for formulae but - if I'm not wrong - all examples that we can find in the book are made using sentences…
1
vote
3 answers

Questions regarding bound variables

$$x\in(\cap F)\cap(\cap G)=[\forall A\in F(x\in A)]\land[\forall A\in G(x\in A)]$$ Since the variable $A$ is bounded by universal quantifier, it is regarded as bounded variable, according to the rules, the variable is free to change to other letters…
1
vote
0 answers

Questions about semantics for First-Order Logic

The basic clause in the semantic definition of satisfaction for quantifiers in f-o logic cab be stated in two alternative forms (for simplicity I assume a formula $A(x)$ : A) take an assignment function $s$ that maps the set $Var = \{ v_1, v_2, ...…
1
vote
3 answers

Mathematical Logic Problem?

I'm trying to solve this mathematical logic problem, can someone please at least give me a tip on how to approach this problem? The square of any positive real number is a positive real number. Write down the, statement in symbolic form the…
RinW
  • 335
  • 6
  • 18
1
vote
0 answers

Characterizing the field of real numbers in the language of ordered fields

Is there an infinitary formula $\Phi$ (in the language of fields in which countable conjunctions and disjunctions are permitted with finitely many quantifiers $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$) which characetrizes the field of real numbers up to isomorphism…
user48900
  • 1,248
1
vote
1 answer

Variable numerical quantifiers

In first order logic with equality, it is easy to define numerical quantifiers such as "there exist exactly two x such that...", or "there exist at least six x such that...". I am trying to develop a logic, more expressive than bare first order…
user107952
  • 20,508
1
vote
2 answers

Logical implication

I had asked this earlier but perhaps I could not put it precisely enough. Consider the atomic formulae $\forall xPx$ and $Pa$, and the logical axiom $\forall xPx \rightarrow Pa$. Can we define a function $T$, per an interpretation, from the set of…
Sudhir
  • 115
1 2 3
99
100