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
4
votes
4 answers

Why is my logical statement wrong?

"Express the following sentence symbollically, using only quantifiers for real numbers, logical connectives, the order relation < and the symbol Q having the meaning 'x is rational'" I have to translate the sentence "There is a rational number…
torr
  • 435
4
votes
1 answer

A couple of Natural Deduction proofs

I have two proofs that I can't figure out how to get started on. a) q ├ (p ∨ ¬p) & q b) p ∨ q, p→¬q Ⱶ (p→q)→(q ∧ ¬p) for q ├ (p ∨ ¬p) & q I only assumed that I might try to prove it indirectly: 1)q (Assumption) 2)show (p ∨ ¬p) & q 3)| show p ∨…
4
votes
1 answer

What is $\forall x P(x)$ equivalent to using the $\exists$ quantifer?

It is just $\neg \exists x \neg P(x)$? Which says there is no $x$ which makes $P(x)$ false?
4
votes
2 answers

Do line-by-line statements imply an $\iff$, an $\implies$, or are they ambiguous?

This is probably a little basic, but say we want to 'prove' that 'If $x + 1 = x(1 + a)$ then $ax = 1$. Now, back in high school I'd have just gone for the line-by-line method, i.e. \begin{align*} x + 1 &= x(1 + a)\\ x + 1 &= x + ax\\ 1 &=…
4
votes
2 answers

Formal definition of effective proof

I am someone who likes precise definitions for mathematical terminology. So, is there some text where there is a precise definition of an effective proof? The notion is vague to me.
user107952
  • 20,508
4
votes
1 answer

Some general questions on first-order logic

I'm currently working through Peter Smith's 'Introduction to Godel's Theorems'. I'm wondering how a formalization of first-order logic that allows us to prove the incompleteness theorems, etc. might look. Is it a first-order theory itself? It does…
Alex
  • 73
4
votes
1 answer

Logical equality

I have these two statements, and I have to decide if they are logical equivalent. $$\forall x\in M : p(x)\land q(x)$$ and $$(\forall x\in M : p(x)) \land (\forall x \in M : q(x))$$ My answer is yes. But I'm not sure, because I have to do a lot of…
4
votes
2 answers

$A(c) \to \forall x A(x) $ not valid even though $A(c)$ can be used to prove $\forall x A(x)$

I would like some advice on a few sentences, although I realize they might be too far removed from their context. This is the statement, from page 11 in Paul Cohen’s book “Set theory and the continuum Hypothesis”: "Assume we know that $A(c)$ is a…
4
votes
1 answer

Some questions about Gödel's theorems of completeness and incompleteness

I am taking a course where we are covering a bit of logic, and I am trying to understand a some nuances of Gödel's theorems of completeness and incompleteness. Q1) Is it correct to say that Gödel's completeness theorem refers to the completeness of…
zrbecker
  • 4,048
4
votes
2 answers

What is the opposite of the statement "$X$ and $Y$ is true"?

Suppose there are two propositions $X$ and $Y$. What is the opposite of the statement "$X$ and $Y$ is true"? I am guessing it is that either $X$ or $Y$ or both of them are false. Is this correct? And if so how can we arrive at this solution from…
triomphe
  • 3,848
4
votes
2 answers

Proof of compactness theorem in first order logic - clarification

My question is about this question and the users's answer to it. Here's the statement of the compactness theorem: If $T$ is a first order theory in some language $L$. The $T$ has a model if and only if every finite subset of $T$ has a model. One…
4
votes
1 answer

Prove using inference rules

I'm having trouble proving this using inference rules... $(A\to (B\to C)\to (B\to (\sim C\to\, \sim A ))$ Perhaps, I should start with $A\to (\sim B\lor C)$?? Help!
objectt
  • 41
4
votes
2 answers

Logic Mathematic Question

“This might interest you, master Yoda and master Obi-Wan,” said Anakin. “My age and the ages of each my three children are prime numbers, and the sum of our ages is 50.” “In that case,” said master Obi-Wan, who knew Anakin’s age, “I can tell you…
sree
  • 41
4
votes
1 answer

Logical puzzles and arguments

The police have three suspects for the number of Mr. Boddy: Professor Plum, Colonel Mustard, and Mr. Green. Professor Plum, Colonel Mustard, and Green each declare that they did not kill Boddy. Mustard also states that he did not know Boddy and that…
user87274
4
votes
1 answer

If ZFC proves "ZFC proves $\phi$", does ZFC prove $\phi$?

If $n$ is the Godel number of $\phi$, then some formula $\chi(n)$ states "ZFC proves $\phi$". One might then think if ZFC $\vdash \chi(n)$, then ZFC $\vdash \phi$, but this seems not necessarily the case. For instance, if $\phi$ is $1 = 0$, then…