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
2 answers

Still not getting difference bettwen Implies and Entails and the role of "interpretation"

Background I am trying to understand the answers to the question Implies ($\Rightarrow$) vs. Entails ($\models$) vs. Provable ($\vdash$). In his answer, ryang wrote: material conditional…
Make42
  • 1,085
4
votes
0 answers

Is there a natural "most general setting" for substructural logics?

The sequent calculus for classical logic can be interpreted as a non-substructural (structural?) logic with sets of formulas on both sides of $\vdash$. In this setting the premises are implicitly conjuncted and the conclusion is implicitly…
Greg Nisbet
  • 11,657
4
votes
5 answers

On logical connector implies

It may appear at first glance that this question had been asked over and over here. But I feel that the question that is in my mind is slightly different from what has already been asked. Here it is: What would have happened if $P \implies Q$ was…
Yathi
  • 1,854
4
votes
2 answers

Does existential elimination affect whether you can do a universal introduction?

In exercise 1 of http://cnx.org/content/m10774/latest/, it says that you cannot do the universal introduction in 1 ∀y:(∃x:(R(x,y))) Premise 2 ∃x:(R(x,q)) ∀Elim, line 1 3 R(p,q) ∃Elim, line 2 4 ∀y:(R(p,y)) …
mtanti
  • 211
4
votes
4 answers

What is difference between “true in ZFC” and “true”?

Let $P$ be a claim. There are two questions. Is it true in ZFC that $P$? And the other is: Is it true that $P$? What is difference between these two questions?
Paul
  • 20,553
4
votes
1 answer

Are there infinite logics that permit non-well-founded proofs in a controlled way?

Are there any infinite logics that permit infinite, non-well-founded proofs in a controlled way? SEP's article on infinitary logic has a nice definition of the family of infinitary logics. There are logics like $\mathcal{L}_{\kappa,\lambda}$.…
Greg Nisbet
  • 11,657
4
votes
2 answers

Implication statements involving a variable

I just learned the definition of implication and have been considering a few problems. Given $x$ is real, prove $x = 1 \Rightarrow x = 2$. Either $x = 1$ or $x \neq 1$. If $x=1$, then the implication is false, and if $x \neq 1$ is true, then the…
TFR
  • 342
4
votes
3 answers

Predicate logic question

Let $P$ be a $2$-ary predicate. Is it true that $$\forall x, y P(x, y)$$ is equivalent to $$\forall x, y P(x, y) \wedge P(y, x)$$ This seems obviously true, but how do you formally prove it?
4
votes
2 answers

Understanding a vacuously true statement through the following example.

I have the following logical implication If John is a dragon, then everyone in town gets 1000 gold coins. p = John is a dragon q = Everyone in town gets 1000 gold coins Now lets say John is NOT a dragon and still everyone in town gets 1000 gold…
4
votes
2 answers

How to write a proof that holds for any two functions that meet some condition which implies another condition?

I have no idea how to start a proof when given something along the lines of: If $f$ and $g$ are any two functions that have some domain $\mathbb{R}$ AND obey the property $$\exists a \in \mathbb{R} \text{ such that } \forall b \in \mathbb{R},…
Curulian
  • 337
  • 1
  • 6
4
votes
2 answers

Semantic/Syntactic Monotonicity

Monotonicity is defined as the implication: M $\vdash$ A $\to$ M $ \cup$ N $\vdash$ A. It depends on the calculus if it is true or not. Correct? But the following semantic version is always true in classical logic: M $\vDash$ A $\to$ M $ \cup$ N…
user774814
4
votes
2 answers

Does the logical conjunction of a false statement and a statement that doesn't make sense result in a false statement?

I kind of feel like this is a silly question, but does taking the logical conjunction of two statements make any sense when one of the statements doesn't make sense? For example, suppose we have the following two statements: Statement X: "47 is an…
PiMan
  • 89
4
votes
3 answers

Proving an implication by disproving its converse

Can we prove an ‘if’ statement by proving that its converse is false? That is, is $$\lnot (B \implies A); \text{ therefore, } (A \implies B)$$ a sound argument? Speaking to several colleagues about this has not convinced me of this. The sentence…
Lev
  • 201
4
votes
1 answer

Second Order Logic: Existential could be expressed as a universal quantifier.

I would like to ask if the following proof is correct: $\exists X.B\Leftrightarrow \forall Y. (\forall X. B\to Y)\to Y$ Starting with a $B\in\Gamma$ in the sequent set and: $\exists X.B\Rightarrow \forall Y. (\forall X. B\to Y)\to Y$ Applying the…
jackb
  • 231
4
votes
3 answers

Not Equivalent Interpretation

Can someone provide an interpretation to show that the following are not equivalent: $$\forall x \in D, P(x) \vee Q(x)\;\;\text{vs.}\;\;(\forall x \in D, P(x)) \vee (\forall x \in D, Q(x))$$ They seem equivalent.
mathnoob
  • 1,319