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
1 answer

Why is the Math-tea argument wrong?

The Math-tea argument says there must be some real numbers that cannot be specified because we only have countably many definitions. Why is that wrong? Is there a simple explanation? I don't understand this…
3
votes
2 answers

Are $M_2= \langle(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}},\infty),\cdot \rangle$ , $M_1 = \langle(2,\infty),\cdot\rangle$ isomorphic structures?

$M_2= \langle(\sqrt{2}^{\sqrt{2}},\infty),\cdot \rangle$ , $M_1 = \langle(2,\infty),\cdot\rangle$ attempt: for all sign of function $f$ 1.$h(F^{M}(a_1,a_2,...a_n))=F^N(h(a_1),h(a_2),...(h(a_n))$ 2.Injective function 3.Surjective function if i try…
user853426
3
votes
3 answers

Finding Boolean/Logical Expressions for truth tables

I need to find the Boolean expression for the truth table below where $P$, $Q$, $R$ are inputs, and $S$ is the output. Does anyone have a cool easy way of solving such problems please? Your help will be appreciated. $$\begin{array}{c|c|c||c} P & Q…
user10695
  • 655
3
votes
1 answer

There is any arithmetical set which is not recursively enumerable?

We say that a $k$-ary relation $r$ over $\mathbb{N}$ is arithmetical if there is a formula $\varphi (\vec{a})$ with $k$ free variables $\vec{a}$, such that, for every $\vec{n}=(n_1,\dots, n_k)\in\mathbb{N}^k$, $$r(\vec{n}) \text{ holds }\ \text{…
Miral
  • 41
3
votes
1 answer

Can a Condition be neither Necessary nor Sufficient?

I've consulted the four introductory logic textbooks below, and none moot the case of an un-necessary and in-sufficient condition. Do such conditions exist? I don't quote from Peter Smith's An Introduction to Formal Logic (Cambridge Introductions to…
user53259
3
votes
3 answers

Negation of "if A then B" (how to prove that "if A then B" is false)

I know that this topic has been discussed before, but I still couldn't find an answer to my particular question. I know that the negation of "If A then B" is "A and NOT B". But I wanted some clarification and what determines true/false for the…
punypaw
  • 465
3
votes
2 answers

How to prove that two empty lists have the same elements in the same order using vacuous implication?

I know that to some extent this question may be insignificant, but I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the vacuous implication in this situation. We know that two lists are equal iff they have the same length and the same elements in the same order.…
J-A-S
  • 621
3
votes
2 answers

(Logic) Formally writing a rational number in logic

How do I "formally write" a rational number $a_i$ in a logic formula? For example, I was taught that $x^2$ should be formally written as $F_\times(x_1,x_1)$, $1$ should be formally written as $c_1$, $2$ should be formally written as $F_+(c_1,c_1)$…
yoyostein
  • 19,608
3
votes
2 answers

Is there a computably axiomatizable first order theory which is not finitely axiom schematizable?

In this question, I asked what an axiom schema was. In one of the answers, I was told that computably axiomatizable is a vastly weaker notion than "finite number of axiom schemas". Is this really true? Can someone exhibit a computably axiomatizable…
user107952
  • 20,508
3
votes
1 answer

Proof via Semantic Equivalence $(p \lor q) \land (q \implies p) \equiv p$

$$(p \lor q) \land (q \implies p) \equiv p$$ Struggling to solve the above with Semantic Equivalence step 1: implication $( p \lor q ) \land ((\lnot q) \lor p)$ step 2: distributivity $((p \lor q ) \land \lnot q) \lor ((p \lor q) \land p)$ step…
3
votes
2 answers

Difference between "and" and "such that"

I have some problems identifying the essential difference between using "and" and "such that" in statements. Consider the property of holding almost everywhere i.e $$ \exists N \in \mathcal{F} \,\,\text{s.t} \,\,\mu(N) = 0 \,\,\text{s.t} \,\,\…
user123124
  • 1,835
3
votes
2 answers

Negations of Statements (Regular Sentences)

I'm having trouble trying to understand the negation of certain sentences. Negate the following statements: At least two of my library books are overdue One of my two friends misplaced his homework assignment No one expected that to happen It's…
cYn
  • 153
3
votes
1 answer

On the justification of negation introduction

In forall x: Calgary, by P. D. Magnus, section 16.6 p. 153, appears this natural deduction proof using Fitch-style: Shouldn't line 8 be Indirect Proof because he is not introducing a negation ?
F. Zer
  • 2,325
  • 1
  • 8
  • 21
3
votes
2 answers

How contrapositive proof works

To prove $p\rightarrow q$, it suffices to prove $\neg q\rightarrow \neg p$. The reason is if I proved $\neg q\rightarrow \neg p$, that means there is no case where $\neg q$ is true and $\neg p$ is false($q$ is false and $p$ is true.) so when I…
user682705
3
votes
3 answers

When is proving the truth of a biconditional statement "the same" as proving that two propositions are logically equivalent?

In the math book that I am studying, the reader is asked to show that several statements are "logically equivalent"...and then in parentheses, the author says "[i.e.] any one of them implies the other". After scouring this website (and others) for…
S.C.
  • 4,984