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
3 answers

Show that every formula of Propositional Logic has the same number of left and right parentheses

Show that every formula of Propositional Logic has the same number of left parentheses as it has of right parentheses. I have the answer, but I have failed to understand it.
Kedi
  • 31
3
votes
1 answer

Use equational proofs to solve problems (Logic)

Use equational proofs to solve the problem: $ \vdash A \lor B \equiv A \lor \lnot B \equiv A $ These are the Axioms and the theorems :
3
votes
3 answers

What is the Conjunction Normal Form of a tautology?

I have a tautology and I need to write its CNF(Conjunction Normal Form). Since its a tautology CNF will not have any element. So should I write 1 in it or 0 ?
user2857
3
votes
3 answers

Can a logical disjunction only connect propositions?

John, a human being, can be either dead or alive: dead(John) ∨ alive(John) We can then define a variable (I'm not sure if I need "element of" or "subset of" here): x ∈ {dead, alive} x(John) and state that (x = dead) ∨ (x = alive) Can we also…
user122549
3
votes
0 answers

Help understanding Smullyan’s semantics definition for First-Order Logic

Ref.to Raymond Smullyan, First-Order Logic (1968 – Dover reprint). Some background : [pag.44] - individual variables (to be used bound) and individual parameters (to be used free) [pag.47] - first-order valuation (basically, the standard semantics…
3
votes
3 answers

How to Convert this to CNF and DNF

I am having serious problems whenever I try to convert a formula to CNF/DNF. My main problem is that I do not know how to simplify the formula in the end, so even though I apply the rules in a correct way and reach the end of the question, being…
3
votes
1 answer

Some questions about "deep" implications of Gödel's Completeness Theorem (if any)

I'm trying to refresh my knowledge about mathematical logic and I'm still unsatisfied with my insight of Gödel's Completeness Theorem. I've studied Henkin's version and I think I've mastered it. Some textbooks (e.g.Ian Chiswell & Wilfrid Hodges,…
3
votes
6 answers

Logic puzzle - problem 298, linked below

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.4169/mathhorizons.21.2.30?uid=3739576&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103171332151 Paraphrased (not by OP) the problem from the above link is: Three identical triplets (#1, #2, #3) sit in front of Derek. Exactly one…
jazzydc
  • 31
3
votes
1 answer

A theorem of formal Number Theory, according to Kleene, IM (1952)

In S.C.Kleene, Introduction to Metamathematics (1952) , I've found difficulty with the proof of 148 (preliminary to least number principle) : $\vdash \exists y[y < x \land A(y) \land \forall z( z < y \rightarrow \lnot A(z))] \lor \forall y[ y < x…
3
votes
2 answers

show that $\Gamma = Th(A) \cup \{\varphi_n : n \in \omega\}$ is satisfiable

I am trying to solve this problem from Enderton's book: What i've tried: I see that this problem reduces to show that a set of formulas, say $\Gamma$ is satisfiable using the compactness theorem: For definition I have that $A \equiv B \Rightarrow…
LFRC
  • 643
3
votes
1 answer

theory and a logic

The book I am reading (The first course in logic) discusses the difference between a logic and logic. This distinction is quite clear to me. I wonder what is the difference between a theory and a logic?
Adam
  • 3,422
  • 1
  • 33
  • 50
3
votes
2 answers

Undecidability in ZFC of statements concerning logical validity

For every first-order sentence (in some vocabulary) $\varphi$ let us denote by $\varphi^+$ to the sentence (in the vocabulary of ZFC) expressing "$\varphi$ is logically valid (i.e., $\varphi$ is true in all first-order structures)". My question…
boumol
  • 1,233
3
votes
2 answers

Using halting problem to prove undecidable problems

Let $\alpha_1$; $\alpha_2$ be any two different finite binary strings. Let $E_{\alpha_1\alpha_2}$ be the set of all codes of programs M such that M does not distinguish between the input $\alpha_1$ and the input $\alpha_2$. That is, if M halts on…
Mark
  • 3,109
3
votes
3 answers

getting rid of implication

I'm supposed to show that $[(P \implies Q) \land P] \implies Q$ is a tautology. I used the conditional law $$(P \implies Q) \iff \lnot(P \land \lnot Q)$$ to change this to: $$[(\lnot P \lor Q) \land P] \implies Q.$$ I've reduced this (using the…
muros
  • 417
3
votes
1 answer

Proving $A \wedge B \implies A$ in propositional calculus.

Consider the formal axiomatic theory, whose axioms are $$(B \implies (A \implies B))$$ $$((B \implies (A \implies C)) \implies ((B \implies A) \implies (B \implies C)))$$ $$(((\neg A \implies (\neg B)) \implies (((\neg A) \implies B) \implies A ))…
user98606
  • 31
  • 1