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

Negation of biconditional statements?

Let $p$ and $q$ be two sub statements of the compound biconditional statement given as $p$⇔$q$. The negation of this biconditional statement is given as ($p$^~$q$)∨($q$^~$p$) In the above statement, is the OR(∨) separating the two sub statements in…
user361896
3
votes
2 answers

Are the following two equivalent?

A. $\left(\exists x:\phi(x)\right)\Rightarrow \psi$ B. $\forall x:\left(\phi(x)\Rightarrow \psi\right)$ where $\psi$ does not depend on $x$. I think they are and reasoning is as follows: they are both true iff $\psi$ is true $\psi$ is false but…
Adam
  • 686
3
votes
1 answer

Elementary logic. Negation

The negation of : ∃x ∀y (P(x,y) ⇒ Q(x,y)) is: ∀x ∃y ¬(P(x,y) ⇒ Q(x,y)) But I am not sure about the last part (¬(...)). Is that negation well done, in the sense that couldn't be done more concisely?
Nerian
  • 321
3
votes
5 answers

Does a if and only if b imply b if and only if a?

I was told that a if and only if b implies b if and only if a. I am not sure I believe this because I can think of many examples where this seems to be false. The animal is a human if and only if it is a mammal (True). The animal is a mammal if and…
sammy
  • 523
3
votes
4 answers

Mathematical logic proof that true

I have a small exercice in mathematical logic, i must proof that : (( p ⇒ q ) ∧ ( q ⇒ r )) ⇒ ( p ⇒ r) is true. I know i can replace : A ⇒ B by ∼A ∨ B A ⇔ B by (A ∧ B) ∨ (∼A ∧ ∼B) so my first thing is to develop : ( ~p ∨ q ∧ ~q ∨ r) ⇒ ~p ∨ r ( ~p…
3
votes
3 answers

What is Absurdity and Contradiction?

I want to know the meaning of these mathematical terms. What do they mean in mathematical logic? Do they refer to same thing or are they different. I am trying to learn "Proof by contradiction" Please help me. Thanks in advance.
3
votes
2 answers

Providing feedback on contributions to reaching a target without disclosing the real value of the target

Let's say I want to motivate people to contribute to a quantifiable target but I do not want to disclose the value of the target. Example: we need to build a brick wall. Each student can, based on his or her skills, time availability and any other…
MiniMe
  • 153
  • 4
3
votes
2 answers

What is the advantage and disadvantage of Hilbert System?

I have an exam in the course about higher order logic. I was looking for answer of the question "Explain the advantage and disadvantage of using Hilbert system". The disadvantage in the meaning of why it is hard to apply. Thanks.
moshfiqur
  • 161
3
votes
1 answer

Semantic restrictions for $\forall$-introduction and $\exists$-elimination

I don't understand how the semantic restrictions for $\forall-$introduction and $\exists-$elimination work. These are $\dfrac{\Gamma \vdash \phi}{\Gamma\vdash \forall x\phi}, (x\notin FV(\Gamma))\quad$ and $\dfrac{\Gamma\vdash \exists x \phi\;\;\;…
Cure
  • 4,051
3
votes
1 answer

Truth Tables - How to identify normals in Knights, Knaves and Normals problems?

To describe my question, I'll illustrate an example of a Knights, Knaves and Normals problem and the way I solve it. Question Knights always tell the truth. Knaves always lie. Normals sometimes lie and sometimes tell the truth. Given the following…
Joseph
  • 33
3
votes
1 answer

Second Order Arithmetic

Since second order arithmetic is finitely axiomatazible why do not work with it, and insted we prefer first order Peano Axioms that include induction scheme?
3
votes
1 answer

what is the difference between symbolic and formal logic

I have just started learning logic, and was wondering is there any difference between symbolic and formal logic, or are they the same thing? And I would also like to know what the relationship of mathematical logic and these two logics are
kb068
  • 33
3
votes
3 answers

How do I prove something without premises in a Fitch system?

If asked “Prove in Fitch: From no premises, derive $A \lor (A \to B)$. Without using Taut Con?" These are the are the Fitch rules, and this is what I have so far. Should I aim to use V Elim to isolate both sides and then derive with the method I'm…
3
votes
1 answer

Logic and one interview question, is there any solution?!

I took an interview last day. I remember one question: If we know "mouse is a toy", "toys are funny", "some toys is harmful". Then which of the following propositions not necessarily true? (Some means at least one exists) Some of the mice are…
3
votes
2 answers

Velleman exercise 1.5.7a

I've been trying to solve the exercise 7(a) of Velleman's "How To Prove It" and haven't succeeded. It asks the verification of the following equivalence: $$ (P \to Q) \land (Q \to R) = (P \to R) \land ((P \leftrightarrow Q) \lor (R \leftrightarrow…
user36546