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
3
votes
2 answers

First order logical formula for "one of x"

Considering the following sentence: Almost one of five women earn more money than her partner. I can partly translate this to the following first order predicate logical formula: (assuming that a partner ship is 'traditional') $\exists…
Bas
  • 143
3
votes
2 answers

Proofs for Relational Predicate Logic --Difficult Question!

I have been working on this problem for four and a half hours and I think I have simply missed something. I need the help of my peers here. The rules I am allowed to use are the Basic Inference rules (MP, MT, HS, Simp, Conj, DS, Add, Dil.), the…
T. J.
  • 31
3
votes
3 answers

General Strategy for Derivations in Propositional Logic

In Propositional Logic, one is often tasked with showing that some particular formula is a theorem of a given deductive system, i.e. $\emptyset \vdash \psi$. These formulas can look very simple and intuitive, e.g. $(\alpha \rightarrow \alpha)$, but…
Mathmo
  • 4,883
3
votes
2 answers

What is the formal proof for distributive law, from the other side of the equation?

How does one prove that (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R) ⊢ P ∨ (Q ∧ R) Is this a well formed proof? (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R) (premise) (P ∨ Q) (P ∨ R) (and-elimination) ~P-> Q ~P-> R (???) ~P (assumption) Q R …
Einheri
  • 133
3
votes
2 answers

Reductio Ad Absurdum Question

I've been stuck on this question (which uses RAA). Was wondering if somebody could help me to make sense of it? $$\{\neg (\phi \leftrightarrow \psi )\} \vdash ((\neg \phi )\leftrightarrow \psi )$$ Thanks
3
votes
2 answers

Epistemic logic: in which worlds are the formulas true?

I have a question regarding the following: I don't get both answers. I thought that question 1 was true in w2, w3, w4. But the answer does not show have w3. Why is that? Because the symbol says that it considers q to be true. And for question 2: I…
3
votes
1 answer

Some burning questions on First-order logic from an amateur

I'm currently taking an introductory course in Mathematical logic(prerequisites is only advanced calculus) and my lecture notes are based on Enderton's book 'Mathematical Introduction to Logic' Suppose $\varphi$ is deducible from $\Gamma$ and we are…
3
votes
2 answers

compound proposition logically equivalent

I can not solve this question Find a compound proposition logically equivalent to $p \to q$ using only the logical operator $\downarrow$.
Sara
  • 31
3
votes
2 answers

Simplify $A!B + A!C + BC$

Could someone help me simplify this logical expression: $A!B + A!C + BC$ ? I know the identities: $A + AB = A$ $A + !AB = A + B$ $(A + B)(A + C) = A + BC$ but I'm not sure what the first step in simplification would be. Any help would be…
Jessica
  • 45
  • 4
3
votes
3 answers

Is there any example of Two logically equivalent sentences that together are an inconsistent set?

In my textbook it say this is true. But I do not see how. How can something be inconsient if they both have the same truth value.
Fernando Martinez
  • 6,698
  • 19
  • 74
  • 108
3
votes
2 answers

$\psi \to (\exists x)\phi(x) \Leftrightarrow (\exists x)(\psi \to \phi(x))$, etc

My textbooks states the following equivalences without proof: $$(\psi \to (\exists x)\phi(x)) \Leftrightarrow (\exists x)(\psi \to \phi(x))$$ $$(\psi \to (\forall x)\phi(x)) \Leftrightarrow (\forall x)(\psi \to \phi(x))$$ At first blush they seem…
kjo
  • 14,334
3
votes
1 answer

What is the meaning of $M \models \varphi$?

I'm currently learning for a computer science exam (programming paradigms) by reading the slides the professor offers. There are a lot of symbols and I would like to know what they mean. First of all, there is $\mathcal{M}$ introduced as a "model".…
Martin Thoma
  • 9,821
3
votes
1 answer

Cyclical relations

A 1-cyclical relation is a reflexive relation. A 2-cyclical relation is a symmetric relation, and a 3 cyclical relation is one such that the conjunction of xRy and yRz imply zRx. A 4-cyclical relation is one such that the conjunction of xRy and yRz…
user107952
  • 20,508
3
votes
5 answers

propositional logic , don't know the answer

Is the assertion "This statement is false" a proposition? I think that it is a proposition because this("This Statement is false") may have truth values. the statement may be true or maybe false. therefore its proposition. but i don't know if i am…
3
votes
1 answer

Predicate Logic Equivalencies?

Are the following two equivalent: $$ \forall x \space \exists y \space [ \space A(x) \rightarrow B(y) \space ] $$ and $$ \forall x \space [ \space A(x) \rightarrow \exists y \space B(y) \space ] $$ If so, is one preferred to the other? Thanks!