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
17
votes
2 answers

The (un)decidability of Robinson-Arithmetic-without-Multiplication?

Take our old friend Robinson Arithmetic, and cut it down to a theory of successor and addition. To spell that out (just to ensure that we are singing from the same hymn sheet), take the first-order theory with $\mathsf{0}$ as the sole constant,…
Peter Smith
  • 54,743
17
votes
1 answer

what's the difference between Syntactic consequence ⊢ and Semantic consequence ⊨

Can you help me to differentiate the Syntactic consequence $\vdash$ and Semantic consequence $\vDash$ ? I think $A \vdash B$ means, "$A$ proves $B$" and $A \vDash B$ means , if $A$ is true, then $B$ is true. If so, what is difference $A \to B$ …
16
votes
10 answers

"I have found a dead body on my car."

Given a statement "I have found a dead body on my car", and considering the fact that I do not own any car, is this statement true? If so, is this a special case of false implies anything?
16
votes
1 answer

When do we use entailment vs implication?

I have seen both used and I have been unable to find by searching. They seem to have a similar meaning from what I have seen, however I have only seen entailment in relation to models.
stmfunk
  • 273
16
votes
2 answers

Knights and knaves again on an island

In an island there are 3 inhabitants, one of which is a knight (who always tells the truth) and the other two are Jokers who randomly decide whether to tell truth or lie. The 3 men have the numbers 1, 2 and 3 on their t-shirt. You need to find at…
16
votes
3 answers

What is the difference between a sound argument and a valid argument?

In my notes, these are the definitions of a valid argument An argument form is valid if and only if whenever the premises are all true, then conclusion is true. An argument is valid if its argument form is valid. For a sound argument, An…
Lemon
  • 12,664
16
votes
8 answers

What is the negation of the implication statement

In a course on logic and proofs the professor presented on the following lines to show an example of negation: $$ \neg (P \Rightarrow Q) \ \ \ \ \Longleftrightarrow \ \ \ \ P \wedge \neg Q $$ I can't wrap my head around why $\neg (P \Rightarrow Q)$…
Bruno KM
  • 490
16
votes
2 answers

First order logic - why do we need function symbols?

Using function symbols in first order logic forces us to define "terms" inductively, which makes many proofs longer and much more tedious. Of course, function symbols simplify matters when trying to use first order logic to describe things, but on…
Gadi A
  • 19,265
16
votes
4 answers

Proof by Contradiction, Circular Reasoning?

Suppose we wish to prove $P$ implies $Q$. We assume $P$. Proof by contradiction begins by assuming not $Q$, and from these two assumptions, a "contradiction" is derived. Now, sometimes that contradiction is that $Q$ is true. I can't help but to feel…
Peter
  • 1,497
  • 1
  • 16
  • 28
15
votes
2 answers

Does some proof of arithmetic's consistency exist?

I am studying an undergraduate book of mathematical logic. After proving the two Gödel's theorems of incompleteness of formal theories, it asserts that some proofs of arithmetic's consistency exist. About this it mentions the use of infinite…
Robbo
  • 1,055
15
votes
2 answers

Property for repetitive functions

Call a function $f : \mathcal{N} \rightarrow \mathcal{N}$ repetitive if for every finite sequence of natural numbers $(a_1, a_2, \cdots,a_n)$ there exists a number $k \in \mathcal{N}$ satisfying $f(k) = a_1$, $f(k+1) = a_2$, ... , $f(k + n -1) =…
xzeo
  • 724
14
votes
3 answers

Distribution of Universal Quantifiers

I know that a universal quantifier can be distributed over conjunction and not disjunction, but I'm having a hard time wrap my head around it. Why is this the case? Is there an example of a statement that would demonstrate this principle?
14
votes
4 answers

Are there any non-constructive proofs for which an example was never constructed?

By non-constructive I mean the following: A mathematical object is proven to exist yet it is not constructed in the proof. Are there any examples of proofs like this where the mathematical object was never constructed? (by which i mean even after…
Saal Hardali
  • 4,759
14
votes
5 answers

Why is it possible to conclude everything from a false statement?

Possible Duplicates: In classical logic, why is (p -> q) True if both p and q are False? Why an inconsistent formal system can prove everything? I heard a professor of mathematics explaining that the following conslusions are…
Aufwind
  • 2,215
14
votes
3 answers

Assumption about elements of the empty set

Is there any axiom or theorem of any part of math/logic that states the fact: "Every assumption about the elements of the empty set is true." ? If no, can you imagine why it is not true?
RinKaMan
  • 307