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
6
votes
2 answers

Formal logic proof of absolute value formula

I've been trying to prove this for a long time now, anyone willing to offer some help or get me pointed in the right direction? $(x>0 \implies z = x) \wedge (x < 0 \implies z = -x) \implies z \ge 0$
6
votes
2 answers

Definable relations of $(\mathbb R; <)$ in first-order language

On page 101, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Herbert B. Enderton(2ed), What subsets of the real line $\mathbb R$ are definable in $(\mathbb R; <)$? What subsets of the plane $\mathbb R × \mathbb R$ are definable in $(\mathbb R; <)$? …
6
votes
2 answers

What is definability in First-Order Logic?

Can someone explain to me the definition of definability in first-order logic in simple terms and with an example? I would appreciate this. I just want to really understand this. Thank you. Here is the definition I have. Definability in an…
6
votes
2 answers

What is the purpose of axiomatic systems?

I am a beginner in logic and I am a bit confused on what the purpose of axiomatic systems is. Are the axiomatic systems developed to prove all theorems of a given theory. If yes, then does this mean that set of axioms for a given theory are (can…
abk
  • 435
6
votes
3 answers

Given $p$ ⇒ $q$, use the Fitch System to prove ¬p ∨ q.

Disclaimer: I'm a complete newbie to the site, and I haven't fully figured out how to format properly. I do not have enough reputation to use the meta sandbox thread, so in addition to asking my question, I may use some space below to test some…
6
votes
1 answer

Proof logic using conditional proof

I have a question where I need to show that $(a \wedge b), (a \vee b)$ entails $(a \rightarrow b) \wedge(c \rightarrow a)$ Here's my proof $(1) \space (a \wedge b) \qquad $ premise $(2) \space a \qquad$ supposing for conditional proof $(3) \space b…
vbn ghk
  • 63
  • 3
6
votes
3 answers

Factoring out universal quantifier in combination with an implication

I just began studying maths and so far everything made sense after tinkering around with it a little bit (e.g. $ \lnot(\forall x \in M : A(x)) = \exists x \in M : \lnot A(x) $ thinking "not all math students are dumb means that there's at least one…
Peter
  • 587
6
votes
4 answers

How should I proceed in proving this tautology?

I know that following is a tautology because I've checked its truth table. I am now attempting to prove that it is a tautology by using the rules of logic, which is more difficult. How should I proceed? $(p\land(p\implies q))\implies…
lampShade
  • 1,053
6
votes
12 answers

Trouble with "only if"

This is from pg. 45 of Discrete Mathematics with Applications by Epp: I'm having trouble understanding the last sentence. If we say that $p$ is John breaking the world's record and $q$ is John running the mile in under four minutes, doesn't $q…
John
  • 1,139
6
votes
4 answers

Mathematical Difference between "there is one" and "there is EXACTLY one"

I know that I can say ∃x(P(x)) which means there is at least one x for P(x), but how do I express for exactly one? Here's the questions: (a) Not everyone in your class has an internet connection. (b) Everyone except one student in your class has an…
6
votes
1 answer

Does a proof by contrapostion guarantee an alternative direct proof?

If $ P \Rightarrow Q$ is true and can be proved by "directly proving" its contrapositive $ \lnot Q \Rightarrow \lnot P $, does the former, necessarily, also have an alternative direct proof? Background: The second paragraph in Direct Proof states…
6
votes
1 answer

Prove a set of connectives is functionally complete

What is the right way of proving that a set of logical connectives is or not functionally complete? For example, if I have {→,∨} how can I show it is or not functionally complete? Any ideas?
KeykoYume
  • 492
6
votes
2 answers

Systems without the law of excluded middle

If my understanding is correct (indeed, I think Wikipedia says this same thing) there are systems of logic in which the law of excluded middle does not hold. I can see how in some kind of generalization of logic we could have a system without the…
user82004
6
votes
3 answers

A confusion about proof by contradiction...

This may be a duplicate question but I am curious as to the answer regarding the statement "some theorems can only be proved by contradiction". In Can every proof by contradiction also be shown without contradiction the highly voted answer claims…
GYL
  • 117
6
votes
1 answer

What is the difference between weak and strong completeness in many valued logic?

I know a bunch of facts about weak and strong completeness in many valued logic, that there is strong completeness for the finite mv logic, and that for the infinite ones you can either only have weak completeness or strong finitary completeness. My…
Sara
  • 571