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
2 answers

Negation of $\forall x T(x) \implies \exists y L(y)$

I am trying to figure out the negation of $\forall xT(x) \implies \exists y L(y)$ I have two choices in mind $\exists x T(x) \land \forall y \neg L(y)$ $\forall x T(x) \land \forall y \neg L(y)$ Not sure which is correct. I know in general the…
5
votes
2 answers

The difference between validity and entailment in first order logic

I'm a newbie to logic so please forgive me if this is a basic question. I've searched the web and stack exchange but can't seem to find an answer. The book I'm reading on predicate logic (forallx) says that although the argument '${\rm A}$ therefore…
Max
  • 51
5
votes
0 answers

Let $A = \{{x \in \mathbb{R} \mid x \cdot \pi \in \mathbb{Z}\}}$, $B = \{{a \in \mathbb{R^+}\mid \exists k \in \mathbb{N^+},...}$

Let $A = \{{x \in \mathbb{R} \mid x \cdot \pi \in \mathbb{Z}\}}$, $B = \{{a \in \mathbb{R^+}\mid \exists k \in \mathbb{N^+}, \exists q \in \mathbb{Q^+} : a^q = k \cdot q\}}$ Is $|A| = |B|$ ? Attempt: If we looking at the $A$ group we can see that…
kuty
  • 73
5
votes
3 answers

What is a direct proof, formally?

In my logic class I took in college, I sometimes would get wrong marks because I proved a statement indirectly instead of directly. Informally, a direct proof of a conditional $P \implies Q$, is one where you assume $P$ and try to deduce $Q$…
user107952
  • 20,508
5
votes
2 answers

What holds in a deductively complete system?

I read an article which presented some system with axioms and inference rules (I don't know if that type of system have a term for in English). The article stated that the system is "deductively complete". I have read in Wikipedia a bit to recall…
Belgi
  • 23,150
5
votes
1 answer

What is the negation of "Tomorrow will rain"? Is it "All days other than tomorrow will not rain" or is it "Tomorrow will not rain"?

I know if you negate a qualifier like “Every person likes logic” it will become “Some people do not like logic”. Does negating a qualifier apply to negating a time period set as well? Also, why do we even negate a qualifier? What is wrong with…
5
votes
1 answer

Prove that biconditional cannot be expressed in terms of implication alone.

Is it sufficient to show that since $A \Leftrightarrow B$ is equivalent to $(A \Rightarrow B) \land (B \Rightarrow A)$ and as conjunction cannot be expressed using conditional alone, neither can biconditional? I can't think of a convincing argument…
5
votes
1 answer

Is $n+1$-th order logic always more expressive than $n$-th order logic?

Is $n+1$-th order logic always more expressive than $n$-th order logic? That is to say, it means that third-order logic is more expressive than second-order, $11$-th order logic is more expressive than $10$-th order logic, etc. Is this true? And if…
user107952
  • 20,508
5
votes
0 answers

Implications between excluded middle, non-contradiction, and bivalence

Put simply, I want to know whether the principle of bivalence implies the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, and conversely, whether the law of excluded middle together with the law of non-contradiction implies the principle of…
Anonymous
  • 2,630
  • 8
  • 27
5
votes
2 answers

Do arithmetical statements of this form have any mathematical significance?

Begin with four binary relations $=, \neq,\leq,\geq$ and two binary operations $+,\times$ Now consider the sentences over this signature that only involve the following: Logical AND Logical OR "There exists $n$ such that..." "For all $n \leq m$…
goblin GONE
  • 67,744
5
votes
1 answer

What is the formal definition of a translation between theories?

I've heard the expression "a translation from theory $A$ to theory $B$" thrown around a bit, but never encountered a formal definition. What is a translation between first-order theories? Furthermore, does this make the class of all theories over a…
goblin GONE
  • 67,744
5
votes
3 answers

What is the meaning of "in particular" in this proof?

This is the context: In other words, P says “This logical sentence does not have a proof shorter than n.” or “I do not have a short proof.” We call such a logical sentence a Parikh sentence. Let us determine if this sentence is true or false. If…
5
votes
3 answers

Infinite processes riddle

A train with infinitely many seats, one for each rational number, stops in countably many villages, one for each positive integer, in increasing order, and then finally arrives at the city. At the first village, two women board the train. At the…
Yun
5
votes
3 answers

Consequence in Logic

For arbitrary formulas $A,B,C$ it holds that: $\{A,B\} \vDash C $ if $A \vDash (B \Rightarrow C)$ $(A \Rightarrow B) \vDash C$ if $A \vDash (B \Rightarrow C)$ $A \vDash C$ if $A \vDash (B \Rightarrow C)$ I know that only first one holds, can…
Noturab
  • 497
5
votes
4 answers

Understanding how contrapositive work

I want to understand contrapositive clearly. I'll start by saying: "If it is sunny, then there is light". The statement is true. But now consider the contrapositive: " If there is no light then it is not sunny". The contrapositive is false because…