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

Logic: Proving ~(a ↔ b) and (a ↔ ~b) are equivalent in LPL's Fitch

I am working on a proof where I was able to derive this general form: ~(a ↔ b) From this I would like to obtain: a ↔ ~b I have made sure that the two statements are equivalent by drawing out truth-tables. The problem is that I am not really…
Matt
  • 67
3
votes
1 answer

Can the tableau proof be used on $X$ instead of $\neg X$?

I know you can show that $X$ is a tautology when all branches of $\neg X$ close. But is it equivalent to prove that no branch of $X$ itself closes? Thanks in advance!
Johny Hunter
  • 327
  • 1
  • 2
  • 11
3
votes
2 answers

Are there axioms for metalogic?

I'm just starting a study of mathematical logic, primarily through 'First Order Mathematical Logic' by Angelo Margaris. In the text, axioms for the statement calculus and the predicate calculus are given and properties of the resulting system are…
3
votes
1 answer

Logic: one vs many structures for a given language

i'm self-studying logic. I'm comparing three texts (though Chiswell & Hodges (C&H) so far remains the most comprehensible). For my question regarding structures I found this, this, and this question; yet i remain bothered on one point. In one…
Lugh
  • 159
3
votes
1 answer

Self-defeating axioms?

By Godel's incompleteness theorem, no consistent r.e. theories $T$ that can encode PA can prove $Con(T)$. But is there is consistent r.e. theories $T$ that can encode PA that can actually prove $\neg Con(T)$? Perhaps there is already a name for it,…
3
votes
4 answers

What proof strategy can we use to prove this?

$$\forall x [P(x) \rightarrow Q(x)] \Rightarrow [\forall x P(x) \rightarrow \forall x Q(x)]$$ I tried to do a proof by case, but it doesn't work because of the quantifiers. So I was wondering what are the proof strategies I can use for this.
hjggh
  • 183
  • 1
  • 7
3
votes
2 answers

mathematical logic: a step is not clear

I'm reading the Shoenfield's book Mathematical Logic. On page 53 it states: Let r be the special constant for $\exists x.\neg$A. Then $\exists x. \neg A \implies \neg A_x[\boldsymbol{r}]$ [substitution of r for x] is an axiom of $T_c$. Bringing…
Bento
  • 554
  • 3
  • 11
3
votes
2 answers

How is magnitude defined in Euclid's elements?

I thought to avoid working with irrational numbers ancient Greeks introduced the concept of magnitudes. This allows mathematicians to do a rigorous mathematics based on geometry for 2000 years. However, what I do not understand is that how could…
abk
  • 435
3
votes
1 answer

In predicate logic, are these four expression equivalances?

(1) $\forall x P(x) \wedge \forall x Q(x)$ (2) $\forall x (P(x) \wedge Q(x)) $ (3) $\forall y (\forall x P(x) \wedge Q(y))$ (4) $ \forall y \forall x(P(x)\wedge Q(y))$ I'm sure that (1) and (2) are equivalance. I think (3) and (4) are the same as…
Firegun
  • 256
  • 2
  • 13
3
votes
2 answers

predicates & quantifiers

How to express these in terms of predicates & quantifiers : Some properties are tautologies The negation of a contradiction is a tautology The dis junction of two contingencies can be a tautology. The conjunction of two tautologies is a…
thinkinbee
  • 31
  • 1
  • 3
3
votes
2 answers

Distributive Law for 'such that'?

I am learning set theory through Charles C.Pinter's textbook. In the book, there are no nice explanation for definition or properties of 'such that'. This is my problem. I tried to solve the problem: If G, H and J are graphs, $$(H \cup J) \circ G =…
Kyle
  • 79
3
votes
1 answer

Does predicate logic's semidecidability follow from the completeness of predicate logic itself?

Does predicate logic's semidecidability follow from the completeness of predicate logic itself (i.e., from Godel's completeness theorem)? From the fact that in predicate logic logical consequence entails derivability follows that every theorem in it…
user405159
  • 353
  • 2
  • 12
3
votes
2 answers

Could there be an upper bound on models?

For example, if a sentence is satisfiable, is it possible that it has no models of size, say, 4 or greater? I'm thinking it's not possible, but I can't quite see why.
Hugh Mungus
  • 420
  • 2
  • 11
3
votes
3 answers

Is 'smallest set having P' equivalent to 'intersection of all sets having P'?

Are these two equivalent? 1) $S$ is the smallest set having property $P$. That is, $S$ has property $P$, and any set that also has property $P$ is a superset of $S$. 2) $S$ is the intersection of all sets having property $P$. Intuitively, these seem…
user308485
  • 1,229
  • 7
  • 13
3
votes
2 answers

What guarantee do we have that in a proof by contradiction, $¬¬A$ does not cause an absurd?

This could be something truly stupid. But let me describe it: Let's take a proof by contradiction, we suppose $¬ A$, and when an absurdity comes from this, we deduce $¬¬A$ must be true. In this case, we verified what happens when something is…
Red Banana
  • 23,956
  • 20
  • 91
  • 192