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

Proof using Reductio ad absurdum (RAA)

Note: $\neg$ means 'not', $\rightarrow$ is 'conditional', $\land$ is 'and', $\lor$ means '(inclusive) or'. Prove: $[\neg D \lor (A \land B)] \rightarrow[(J \rightarrow \neg A) \rightarrow (D \rightarrow \neg J)]$ using Reductio ad absurdum (RAA) or…
Jeff
  • 3,405
3
votes
2 answers

How is "$A$ generalizes $B$" formally defined?

This might look a bit silly but I was trying to find if there is specific symbol/formalization in logic to describe "$A$ generalizes $B$". At first I though simply about using implication, because it seems to just mean that $A \Rightarrow B$. For…
Sil
  • 16,612
3
votes
3 answers

Proofs of the form $(P\lor\neg P)\implies Q$

Suppose I have a statement $S$ along with two contidtional proofs: A proof that the Riemann hypothesis implies $S$, and Another proof that the negation of the Riemann hypothesis also implies $S$. Can we say I proved $S$? Or did I leave out the…
3
votes
1 answer

A supposedly "trivial" logic question

The professor told me that the solution is trivial, but I must have missed something because I don't even see anyway to start. Consider an arbitrary language $L$ (which can contains function, constant and relation symbols) and a first-order theory…
3
votes
2 answers

set theory - sets containing something else

In a book about logic (propositional logic), author uses sets to describe propositional variables, operators (eg. $A=\lbrace \neg,\wedge,\vee,\Rightarrow,\Leftrightarrow\rbrace$)... How can those sets even exist? What are those operators exactly?…
Ivan
  • 53
3
votes
3 answers

A mathematical statement

Is it technically correct to write "Let $A$ and $B$ be two sets"? or we should write "Let $A,B$ be sets"? Actually I am confused whether by mentioning "two" we are ruling out the possibility of $A=B$. Please suggest!
Anupam
  • 4,908
3
votes
9 answers

Why is statement and its converse not equivalent?

Statement : If it is raining, then the home team wins. Converse : If the home team wins, then it is raining. Why are these two not logically equivalent? The statement says that if it rains then the home team wins. In converse, since the home team…
3
votes
1 answer

How to prove $\forall x:P(x) \implies \exists x:P(x)$ without using UI?

In standard FOL, can we prove $\forall x: P(x) \implies \exists x:P(x)$ without introducing a new free variable by universal instantiation, i.e without using $\forall x: P(x) \vdash P(y)$ where $y$ is not does not occur in $P(x)$? I have tried…
3
votes
1 answer

A logic problem about a seller

Three friends enter a shoe shop and approach the seller. The seller asks them; will all 3 of you buy shoes? The answers are as follows: A: I don't know B: I don't know C: No Which guy/guys will buy shoe/shoes? What I think: I think that the…
3
votes
5 answers

Logically speaking, is this exam question paradoxical?

By itself the statement Gasses show ideal behavior at high pressure and low temperature. is false. This being the case All statements are true. is also false. Since we're asked to evaluate which one of these statements is false, is this a fair…
3
votes
7 answers

How to show that $0 \times 2 = 0$?

Here is the suggested proof: $0 \cdot 2=2 \cdot 0 =(1+1) \cdot 0 = 1\cdot 0 + 1\cdot 0 = 0 + 0$. But my question lies in this step. Here is the definition of Zero: $0+a = a$ (for any number $a$) therefore: $0+5=5$ or $0+1639=1639$, but can we…
3
votes
1 answer

many valued logic question

i have problem solving the following exrecise in many valued logic given the many valued logic $ L_5 $ defined as follows $ S = \{0, \frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{2}, \frac{3}{4}, 1\} $ the possible truth values $ D = \{1\} $ the designated set and the…
hjkl
  • 582
3
votes
3 answers

Equivalence and Tarski

I am currently writing a paper on Tarski's Semantic Concept of Truth. His T-schema is as follows: 'X' is true if, and only if, 'p' Where 'p' is a sentence such as "snow is white" and 'X' is the name of a sentence. If snow is white is used as an…
3
votes
1 answer

Gödel's Completeness Theorem

A famous paper by Leon Henkin ("Completeness in the theory of types") begins as follows: "The first order functional calculus was proved complete by Gödel in 1930. Roughly speaking, this proof demonstrates that each formula of the calculus is a…
3
votes
1 answer

What is a "prime implicent"?

What is a "prime implicent"? I guess it's also the "prime implicant". The wiki page is too hard for me to understand. Can someone explain it in simpler terms?