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

Example of infinite proof

Is there a reasonably simple example of an infinitary proof in logic? I need mostly an example in which the total height or level of a derivation is infinite, i.e. there is at least an axiom from which we begin somewhere and applying inference rules…
3
votes
2 answers

Logical squabbles

I need some help with the follwing: Lets suppose that the sentence $\forall x: x\in I \rightarrow P(x)$ is false. Now consider the sentence $$\forall x: x\in I \rightarrow (P(x) \ \& \ Q(x) ) \ \ \quad (1)$$ for any property $Q(x)$, which is also…
temo
  • 5,237
3
votes
2 answers

Do tableaux proofs show syntactic or semantic entailment?

A semantic tableaux proof tries to prove that A entails B by using a tree search to try to find a model for $\{A, \lnot B\}$. If a model is found, then A does not semantically entail B, and so cannot syntactically entail B either. If no model is…
DavidA
  • 563
3
votes
1 answer

What does it mean for two statements in a first-order language to be "independent" of each other?

More precisely, let $T$ be a theory of some first-order language. My question is then the following. What does it mean for two sentences $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ in the same language to be independent of each other in the theory $T$? My…
Boda Poldi
  • 31
  • 1
3
votes
1 answer

Relationship between different semantics

A given theory, say Intuitionistic Propositional Calculus, can have multiple semantics. E.g, we have Heyting Algebras, Kripke models, topoi, etc. For each of this semantics, we have then a different meaning of $\Gamma \vDash \varphi$. Is there any…
Fernando Chu
  • 2,511
  • 8
  • 22
3
votes
0 answers

Can an extension of first order logic resolve the continuum hypothesis?

The continuum hypothesis (CH) states there does not exist $A \subset \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})$ whose cardinality lies between $|\mathbb{N}|$ and $|\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})|$. For each model of ZFC, CH is either true or false. In particular, for the…
3
votes
2 answers

If a statement is not true, must its negation be true?

I've encountered a textbook problem that's telling me to prove an iff statement or its negation. Consider the statement: $P \iff Q$ In my scenario, I have that: $P \implies Q$ but it's not the case that $Q \implies P$ The negation of the original…
3
votes
2 answers

How can you pick the odd marble by 3 steps in this case?

Imagine i have 12 marbles, all identical in every aspect except that 11 of them have exactly the same weight but you do not know the weight of the 12th one (it may be bigger ot smaller than the standard weight). You are provided with a physical…
Rohinb97
  • 1,702
3
votes
2 answers

Correct way to do logical negation? (cf inverse, opposite, contrapositive)

I am doing Keith Devlin's "Introduction to Mathematical Thinking" Coursera course. It starts with the topic of using English to precisely define mathematical ideas, including implication and negation. I remain confused - so I wanted to talk through…
Penelope
  • 3,147
3
votes
1 answer

Q does not follow logically from P

If $P \implies Q$ and $not P \implies Q$ then can we conclude that Q does not follow logically correct from P? Someone on the MathStackExchange asked a question that 'why "Socrates is a martian and martians lives in pluto therefore 2+2=4" is…
3
votes
1 answer

Is there any difference between define, denote, $=$, $:=$, $\text{iff}$?

For me, it seems they all mean I can substitute one for the other in afterwards statements. Why do we invent so many terms? Why not just use one of them like "let $xxx=yyy$"? Is there any essential difference between them?
William
  • 221
3
votes
1 answer

Is LEM Actually Invoked in the Classic Irrational Exponent Argument

I am almost positive this has been discussed on here but I can't seem to find it after an hour of searching. Please redirect if so. There is a classic non-constructive argument we have probably all seen to the assertion that "There exists irrational…
Prince M
  • 3,893
3
votes
2 answers

In a first-order theory with multiple sorts, is there any reason not to throw away the sorts?

From a first-order theory with multiple sorts, we can obtain a theory without sorts by introducing a few predicates. For example, a vector space can be viewed as a two-sorted structure, with one sort for scalars and one for vectors. Another way of…
goblin GONE
  • 67,744
3
votes
1 answer

Can a syntactically/negation complete theory be undecidable?

I'm aware that a semantically complete theory can be undecidable. (I believe it's because only logically valid sentences need be provable for a theory to be semantically complete.) But is it possible for a syntactically/negation complete theory to…
csp
  • 175
3
votes
2 answers

A simple logical implication that looks nonsensical

The statement $$x>0$$ no doubt implies that $$x>-10$$ (or that $x$ is greater than any other negative number). The second statement in turn implies that $x$ can be, say, $-9$. By chaining both implications, we arrive at the assertion that "if $x$ is…
jvf
  • 491