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

Propositional Logic Inductive Proof

I am working on a problem to prove, but I do not understand it completely. Where should I use inductive method? What is the base case? And so on. Here is my problem: A truth assignment $M$ is a function that maps propositional variables to $\{0,…
Paul
  • 33
3
votes
1 answer

If {P is provable} is provable, then P is provable?

This is simple question. If, sort-of-says, "X is provable" is provable, then, we can always predicate that X is provable? It means, for the theory T, If T ⊢ (X is provable) then T ⊢ X ?
3
votes
1 answer

Using Herbrand's theorem to prove completeness in first-order logic

I was wondering if one can use Herbrand's Theorem to reduce completeness of first-order logic to completeness of propositional logic. I was thinking of the following argument: If a formula does not have a model then by Herbrand's theorem the set…
3
votes
2 answers

Give the reasons for each steps provided to validate the argument

[(P -> Q) and (~R or S) and (P or R)] -> (~Q -> S). Steps: 1. ~(~Q -> S) 2. ~Q and ~S 3. ~S 4. ~R or S 5. ~R 6. P -> Q 7. ~Q 8. ~P 9. P or R 10. R 11. ~R and R 12. Therefore: ~Q -> S I believe what they are looking for in…
Pete
  • 75
3
votes
1 answer

Understanding necessity and contingency

Studying the book Forall X: Calgary Remix: An Introduction to Formal Logic by P.D. Magnus, came across these exercises and wanted opinion. A. For each of the following: Is it necessarily true, necessarily false, or contingent? If Caesar crossed…
F. Zer
  • 2,325
  • 1
  • 8
  • 21
3
votes
3 answers

How do you simplify $¬ ((¬Q \land ¬P) \lor ¬P)$

Please help. I've missed some lectures, and now I'm stuck (my fault!). The lectures notes don't explain elaborately, and I can't find good tutorials online. I've somehow managed to arrive at $(Q \lor P) \land P$. If this is correct, can this be…
user723727
3
votes
2 answers

¬(p ↔ q) ⇔ (p ↔ ¬q)

$$¬(p ↔ q) ⇔ (p ↔ ¬q)$$ I started with the left side. $LS: ¬(p ↔ q)$ $\Leftrightarrow ¬ ((p → q)∧(q → p)) $ Biconditional Law $\Leftrightarrow ¬((¬pvq)∧(¬qvp)) $ Conditional Law $\Leftrightarrow(¬(¬pvq))v(¬(¬qvp))) $ …
Isaiah
  • 53
3
votes
2 answers

Implication in classical logic - an example

Our professor gave us the following exercise: "Statement P reads “x is a prime number”, statement Q reads “x +1 is a prime number"’. Variable x is an arbitrary positive integer. Is the statement P ⇒ ¬Q true of false for every value of x?" The answer…
3
votes
2 answers

how to determine the truth value of a statement?

How do I know if this statement is true or false? How do you read something like that: $$\forall x\exists y\mid x^{2} = y$$
Ryan
  • 31
3
votes
5 answers

Can $p ∧ q$, where $p$ and $q$ are propositional variables, be a proposition?

Edit: I have removed the original text in favor of showing the specific passages in the book that I am stuck on. Sorry about the inconvenience. I am wondering whether $p ∧ q$ can be a proposition when $p$ and $q$ are both propositional variables. It…
Name
  • 31
3
votes
0 answers

Functional Completeness

I understand that showing function completeness is to use the symbols to generate the same truth values as if the other symbol would allow. Out of the symbols {∧,∨,→,↔}, how would you generate the negation symbol '¬'
D.Ronald
  • 540
3
votes
2 answers

Can argument forms be sound?

So, the definition of a valid argument form is that the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed via the truth of the premises. Soundness is often said to be a valid argument where the premises are true. But note that people say it is a sound argument,…
3
votes
2 answers

Being vacuously true is a definition?

'If $p$ is false, then $p\rightarrow q$ is vacuously true.' Do we have to prove this or is this statement a definition? I have seen a lot of examples explaining this statement but I feel like those examples only explain why it makes sense to say…
user682705
3
votes
5 answers

Are (∀x∈A)(∃y∈B)(x≤y) and (∃y∈B)(∀x∈A)(x≤y) the same?

Do the statements $$(∀x∈A)(∃y∈B)(x≤y)$$ and $$(∃y∈B)(∀x∈A)(x≤y)$$ mean the same, even though the first two brackets are reversed? P.S: Lets say, I have a sentence: There is no number from A, so it would be bigger than all numbers from B.
Ella
  • 89
3
votes
1 answer

Why do we need to define the value of $p \implies q$ when $p$ is false?

Why do we need to define the value of $p \implies q$ when $p$ is false? Is there any problem if we don't define the value of $p \implies q$ when $p$ is false? I didn't learn the value of $p \implies q$ when I was a high-school student. But I…
tchappy ha
  • 8,690