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
5
votes
1 answer

How to prove that a set of connectives is adequate

I have this Table: $$\begin{array} {|c|} \hline A & B & A*B\\ \hline 1 & 1 & 0\\ \hline 1 & 0 & 1\\ \hline 0 & 1 & 1\\ \hline 0 & 0 & 0\\ \hline \end{array}$$ I have to prove that $\{\to, *\}$ forms an adequate set of connectives. My first thought…
5
votes
2 answers

Express AND in terms of OR, XOR, NOT

Is it possible to express the logical AND in terms of XOR, OR, or NOT? The closest I can come is NOT (p XOR q); the only problem is that the case when both p and q are false, this will turn out to be true. Is there any way around it?
Artem
  • 1,208
5
votes
2 answers

If two finite groups satisfy the same first-order sentences, are they isomorphic?

My question is the title. I would be glad if someone could supply a proof if true, or a counterexample if false.
user107952
  • 20,508
5
votes
1 answer

same variable bound by different quantifiers

In studying first-order logic, I have come across this sentence: $\exists x\, P(x)\land\exists x\, R(x)$ If there is some $x$ such that $P(x)$, and there is some $y$ such that $R(y)$, is this sentence true? Are the two $x$'s different? I apologize…
5
votes
3 answers

Contradiction Proof

Suppose one wants to prove $P \implies Q$ by contradiction. In general, we will probably have the following, $P_1, \dots, P_n \implies Q$. Suppose we want to prove this by contradiction. Then is it better to get a contradiction via the following:…
Tony
  • 101
5
votes
2 answers

Contrapositive statement

We know that sometimes it is quite difficult to prove a mathematical statement; but it's contra-positive statement turns out to be easier. I am curious, why does it happen? Is there anything deep happening here?
abi
  • 343
5
votes
1 answer

3-Coloring a graph using propositional formulas

Hello everyone I am studying for an exam on logic and computability, I am trying to tackle a specific problem so any help would be greatly appreciated: Let $G = (V,E)$ be an undirected graph with vertex set $V$ and edge set $E$. A 3-coloring of…
InsigMath
  • 2,073
  • 2
  • 18
  • 27
5
votes
1 answer

Is saying 'This statement is true' a logically valid statement?

I understand how 'This statement is false' is not logically valid, but what about 'This statement is true'? I've always heard self-referential statements are not logically sound, but I can't really give a great explanation for why this one would not…
Hoser
  • 335
5
votes
1 answer

A question about the deduction theorem

The deduction theorem states that if $T \cup \{ \psi \} \vdash \varphi $ and the generalisation rule is not used to prove $\varphi$ then $T \vdash \psi \rightarrow \varphi $. If I apply the generalisation rule, where exactly does it go wrong if I…
5
votes
2 answers

The ultrafinitary equivalent of the Peano axioms?

What are the axioms for ultrafinitary number theory? I have in the mind the school of thought that there is a largest number -- the width of the known universe as a multiple of the diameter of a hydrogen atom, or something like that. I have been…
5
votes
1 answer

Independent statements that cannot be weakened

Let $T$ be a theory and let $\phi,\psi$ be statements that are independent of $T$. Say that $\psi$ is a $T$-weakening of $\phi$ if $T$ proves $\phi \Rightarrow \psi$ but cannot prove $\psi \Rightarrow \phi$, and say that $\phi$ is $T$-basic if there…
Ewan Delanoy
  • 61,600
5
votes
3 answers

True, false and meaningless statements in math.

Consider statement for every x belonging to set consisting of {-1 , -2 } : square root of x is equal to one. Of course it is false, given that square root is not defined over negative nubers which takes real value. So, the opposite statement should…
nkoreli
  • 51
5
votes
1 answer

Some questions about mathematical content of Gödel's Completeness Theorem

I'm trying to refresh my knowledge about mathematical logic and I'm still unsatisfied with my insight of Gödel's Completeness Theorem. In my only "raid" into MathOverflow, I posed a similar question about Gödel's Completeness Theorem. I received a…
5
votes
4 answers

Difference between "only if" and "if and only if"

$$1.\quad p\quad if\quad q\\ \equiv if\quad q\quad then\quad p\\ \equiv q\rightarrow p\\ \\$$$$2.\quad p\quad only\quad if\quad q\\ \equiv if\quad p\quad then\quad q\\ \equiv p\rightarrow q\\ \\$$$$3.\quad p\quad only\quad if\quad q\\ \equiv if\quad…
5
votes
1 answer

Some questions about presentation of First-Order Logic in a book by Raymond Smullyan

I'm re-reading Raymond Smullyan, First Order-Logic (1968 - Dover reprint). It's a wonderful booklet (I liked it very much), but a little bit terse. It uses the distinction between individual variables (to be used "bound") and individual parameters…