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

"Exactly Two" or "Exactly k" from English into (Quantificational) Logic

The inspiration is Example 2.2.3 #2(d) on P71 of How to Prove It by Daniel Velleman. Analyze the logical forms of the following statement: The number $x$ has exactly $k$ $n$th roots. Answer : $\color{#FF4F00}{\exists \, r_1 \cdots \exists \; r_k}…
user53259
4
votes
1 answer

Help Translating Quantified Statement

Normally on dba stackexchange, I am looking for assistance in transforming these statements into English. Not all $x$ in $P(x)$ in Universe (is true if) $x$ exists in Universe for which not $P(x)$ I attempted to resolve the first one using Math…
4
votes
2 answers

Understanding causality in basic propositional logic

I'm struggling through some logic in service of understanding proofs and I find that I'm able to do most of the problems but I'm having a hard time with some intuitions. This involves simple conditionals P->Q. I understand that what's interesting is…
4
votes
1 answer

How are logical statements defined?

I know that if we have $A \implies B$ and $B \implies A$ we can write $A \iff B$, where $B$ and $A$ are logical statements of some sort. An example of this is $x + y =3 \iff x = 3 - y$. However, I would like to ask, what exactly defines $A$ and $B$?…
Nav Bhatthal
  • 1,057
4
votes
3 answers

Example of a set closed under consequence but not maximally consistent

A set $\Gamma$ of propositional formulas is closed under derivations if, for any $\varphi$, we have $\Gamma \vdash \varphi \Rightarrow \varphi \in \Gamma$. A set is maximally consistent if it is consistent and for any $\Gamma'$ s.t. $\Gamma…
lafinur
  • 3,322
4
votes
2 answers

Why are there exactly 2$^\omega$ perfect subsets of the real numbers?

How can you proof that there are $2^{\omega}$ perfect subsets of the real numbers?
ABC
  • 997
4
votes
0 answers

Conclusion from all negative premises

the following image shows a logic puzzle from a German website: https://www.einstellungstest-fragen.de/wp-content/uploads/C_LG_schlssflgrn_6.png The text on the image translates word-for-word to: No animals are tired. Some animals are not…
4
votes
4 answers

Exists iff for all

I have a theorem of the following scheme: $Q \Leftrightarrow \exists x\in Z: P(x) \Leftrightarrow \forall x\in Z: P(x)$. How to simplify it (not to write $P(x)$ twice)?
porton
  • 5,053
4
votes
3 answers

Formalizing without loss of generality

Suppose, while writing a proof, we derive: $\forall x,y (x\leq y) \vee (y\leq x)$ One may say: "without loss of generality, let $x\leq y$" and continue the proof. My goal is to understand how to express that WOLOG formally. Is the following…
4
votes
1 answer

Which second-order sentences induce first-order schemata?

We often replace axioms that quantify over sets with first-order axiom schemata in order to obtain a first-order system of axioms. For example, the axiom of induction gives rise in a natural way to the first-order axiom schema of induction. What is…
goblin GONE
  • 67,744
4
votes
1 answer

Parity query is not first order definable proof using compactness

In the book `elements of finite model theory' by Libkin. They prove that the parity query is not first order definable on finite structures over empty signatures by using the compactness theorem. They do so as follows: let $\lambda_n$ by the…
4
votes
5 answers

Is $\forall x(x\in\varnothing)$ true or false?

I know that $$\forall x(x\in\varnothing)$$ is equivelent with "There is no element in Universe such that $x$ is not in $\varnothing$." but, is $\forall x(x\in\varnothing)$ true or false? Is it an example of vacuously true? How about the Univers…
4
votes
1 answer

How should one think when reading the statement "Let x be any arbitrary ..."?

Suppose in a proof there is a statement "Let $x$ be any arbitrary real number". Semantically, I understand that this means "Consider for any (fixed) real number and let us call that $x$ for the sake of referencing in the future". However, I am not…
4
votes
1 answer

How to show the existence of appropriate faithful interpretation and theory?

I tried to solve this exercises, proposed in 'A Mathematical Introduction to logic' by Enderton §2.7 exercises 1. Assume that $L_0$ and $L_1$ are languages with the same parameters except that $L_0$ has an $n$-place function symbol $f$ not in…
Hanul Jeon
  • 27,376
4
votes
3 answers

Negation of a statement about polynomials

Going through a book here. Stumbled on something confusing. Goes like this: Consider the following statement about a polynomial $f(x)$ with real coefficients, such as $x^2+3$ or $x^3-x^2-x$. (i) For real numbers $a$, if $f(a) = 0$ then $a$ is…
Naz
  • 3,289