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

What does implication actually mean?

I recently have been reading a book on proofs, and in the very first chapter it started to discuss implication. It gave implication's truth table and different ways of expressing implication, and it did attempt to explain it to the reader, but I…
3
votes
3 answers

"This statement is false" but with Gödel numbering

I know that one cannot construct the paradoxical sentence This statement is false with the formal language of logic, since there is no way to denote the proposition itself within the statement, or otherwise it would not be a well-formed formula…
gldanoob
  • 301
3
votes
1 answer

Some questions from forall x

I was doing practice exercises of chapter-3 of the textbook forall x: Calgary An Introduction to Formal Logic. There are some questions confusing me (there answers are not given in the solution booklet): B. For each of the following: Is it a…
Navneet
  • 519
  • 2
  • 11
3
votes
2 answers

If set-intersection corresponds to conjunction, set-union corresponds to disjunction, does the power set have something it corresponds to?

I was reading Susanna Epp's Discrete Mathematics with Applications 3rd Edition and then she started talking about Boolean Algebras at page 289 and I feel I sort of understand it, but not really? which is why I am going to ask this question. Also I…
3
votes
1 answer

The meaning of the sufficient condition

What is the meaning of the sufficient condition? An example, When we say the suffiecient condition for a vector field to be conservative is the curl of it equals zero. So, if we have a conservative vector field, then its curl will be zero. But does…
3
votes
1 answer

Standard definition for a logic

I am looking for a formal or standard definition of a logic and related bibliography. For instance, something like that: A logic is a pair $\mathcal{L}=(F,\models)$ with $F$ a set (of formulas) and $\models$ is a binary relation between subsets…
xyz
  • 929
  • 4
  • 12
3
votes
2 answers

Does it make sense to substitute a value in for bound variables?

Consider the identity $$ \forall x \left(\cos^2x+\sin^2x=1\right) \, . $$ Instructors will often illustrate such identities by giving examples. It is common to hear a statement such as Let $x=\pi/3$. Then the identity states…
user883638
3
votes
4 answers

What is the symmetry between the definitions of the bounded universal/existential quantifiers?

What is the symmetry between the definitions of the bounded universal/existential quantifiers? $\forall x \in A, B(x)$ means $\forall x (x \in A \rightarrow B(x))$ $\exists x \in A, B(x)$ means $\exists x (x \in A \land B(x))$ These make intuitive…
3
votes
2 answers

Finding contrapositive of a universal statement

For all $x$, if $x^2$ is even, then $x$ is even. The contrapositive to this statement is: For all $x$, if $x$ is odd, then $x^2$ is odd. Why do we ignore the "For all $x$" and not say "For some $x$..."?
ianc1339
  • 489
  • 3
  • 12
3
votes
2 answers

Does all proofs by contrapositive have a direct proof that is similar in length?

I know this may be a question not suitable to ask here or is a duplicate, but I'm just wondering if all proofs by contrapositives can be rephrased into a direct proof, without using the fact that they are logically equivalent? Are there instances…
nabu1227
  • 879
3
votes
4 answers

Are $\exists ! (x,y)$ and $\exists ! x \exists ! y$ equivalent?

Here I have the following definition of $\exists ! (x,y) P(x,y)$: $$\exists x \exists y[P(x,y) \land \lnot \exists u \exists v (P (u,v) \land (u \neq x \lor v \neq y))]$$ Are that formula equivalent to $\exists ! x \exists ! yP(x,y)$ ? I'm using…
49328481
  • 109
3
votes
2 answers

Is there a duality principle for classical first-order logic? (and/or free logic?)

In order theory, there's a variety of duality principles, like: If a sentence involving only the meet and join operations is a consequence of the lattice axioms, then: the dual sentence, obtained by replacing all meets in the sentence with…
goblin GONE
  • 67,744
3
votes
2 answers

Natural Deduction proof for $\forall x \neg A \implies \neg \exists xA$

$\forall x \neg A \implies \neg \exists xA$ I won't ask you to solve this for me, but can you please give some guiding lines on how to approach a proof in NDFOL? There are many tricks that the TA shows in class, that I could not dream of... P.S. I…
bomba6
  • 259
  • 2
  • 9
3
votes
1 answer

Expressing logical conjunction with logical imlication and equivalence.

I've come across an exercise which requires you to express every one of the logical operators $\{\wedge, \Rightarrow, \Leftrightarrow\}$ with the other two - for example, $$p \Leftrightarrow q \sim (p \Rightarrow q) \wedge (q \Rightarrow p).$$ So…
the_dude
  • 460
3
votes
1 answer

General interpretation of 'either...or'

I am studying the book 'How to Prove It: A Structured Approach by Daniel J. Velleman' Now according to the textbook: In mathematics, or always means inclusive or, unless specified otherwise, so we will interpret ∨ as inclusive or. That means that…
Navneet
  • 519
  • 2
  • 11