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

Syllogism and Logic

I have been presented with this syllogism: All labradors are four legged (1) All dogs are labradors (2) Therefore, some dogs are four legged (3) I responded valid, my reasoning as follows: L = Labrador F = Four Legged D = Dog ∀x L(x) ->F(x) --…
MrD
  • 416
3
votes
1 answer

Why isn't this a valid formalization of , "Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it?"

Why isn't $\forall(f,d)[\mathrm{farmer?}(f) \land \mathrm{donkey?}(d) \land \mathrm{owns?}(f, d) \implies \mathrm{beats?}(f,d)]$ a valid formalization of, "Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it?" The Wikipeida article on donkey sentences suggests…
3
votes
3 answers

On an axiomatic definition of $P\Rightarrow Q$

One thing that often confuses beginners in logic is that $P\Rightarrow Q$ is TRUE when $P$ is FALSE, whatever Q is. One (weak) reason is that we are mostly interested in the case where $P$ is TRUE, and with the above property, we have the nice…
Taladris
  • 11,339
  • 5
  • 32
  • 58
3
votes
3 answers

How do I express logical connectives with Nand?

Really struggling to understand how to express all the connectives as Nand. I understand that p ^ q would be the opposite of p nand q, but I get stuck when trying to express p -> q and p v q in terms of nand. I'm hoping somebody can inform me on…
3
votes
2 answers

Testing whether Argument is valid or not

I am to determine if argument is valid by making truth table ATTEMPT Let W= Warning lights will come on P= Pressure is high R=Relief valve is clogged Then i have premises as W $\leftrightarrows$ P AND R ,where the symbol indicates bi…
Taylor Ted
  • 3,408
3
votes
1 answer

What does this logic evaluate to in plain English?

I am trying to teach myself logic and feel a bit fuzzy about this statement. $$\forall x \exists y P(x, y)$$ where the universe is the students in a class and P(x, y) means student x copies off of y. Does this mean all students in the class each…
John Hoffman
  • 2,734
3
votes
1 answer

Can one use DeMorgan's Laws to expand a long trail of ANDs and ORs?

For instance, Is $\neg (((p \land q) \lor r) \land s)$ equivalent to $((\neg p \lor \neg q) \land \neg r) \lor \neg s$?
John Hoffman
  • 2,734
3
votes
1 answer

Different definitions of a valid argument?

I have some serious problems understanding what counts as a valid argument and what does not. I have read some different definitions of what a valid argument is: (Sorry if this post is missplaced, I did not know if this apply to mathematics or…
3
votes
1 answer

Why does $\{\phi,(\phi\Rightarrow\psi)\}$ not semantically entail $\psi$ if $\phi$ has a free variable and $\psi$ doesn't?

Right off the bat, I want to make clear that my logic lecturer has adopted a rather non-standard form of the predicate calculus in which structures can be empty. Normally, structures are required to be non-empty in order to prevent this sort of…
John Gowers
  • 24,959
3
votes
2 answers

Need help with checking whether a predicate logic formula is a tautology.

I have an example like this, and I don't know how to solve it (check if is tautology): $\left(\exists_{x} \forall_{y}: q(x,y) \Rightarrow \forall_{y} \exists_{x}:q(x,y)\right)$ So the question is how to find out is this tautology? I thought first…
3
votes
1 answer

For finite $\Sigma$, if $\Sigma \vdash A$ then $\Sigma \models A$

In my book I have a theorem called "Soundness theorem" and it says: For finite set $\Sigma$, if $\Sigma \vdash A$ then $\Sigma \models A$ Can someone tell me what the symbol $\vdash$ and the symbol $\models$ means?
3
votes
5 answers

Couldn't we have defined the material conditional differently?

I've been mulling this over lately, and I can't seem to understand why exactly the material conditional wasn't defined in a completely different way. Obviously, the motivation behind our current definition of the material conditional is, amongst…
Ius Klesar
  • 1,406
3
votes
1 answer

Resolution rule in propositional calculus

I was thinking about a reverse case of validity of resolution rule and had a question about it. Basically, let me state resolution rule first. Suppose $C_1$ and $C_2$ are clauses such that a literal $l$ belongs to $C_1$ and a complementary literal…
antonl
3
votes
2 answers

Rule of inference and truth table issue

Let P – Light is on Q – The switch is down R – The door is open If the switch is down then the light is on. If the switch is not down then the door is open. If the door is open then the light is on. Therefore the light is on; Prove or disprove the…
Padmal
  • 595
3
votes
2 answers

What is a theory and what is its extension

As I understand, a theory is a set of sentences which are closed under some notion of deduction (i.e., applying deduction rules to the sentences of a theorem does not produce any new sentences) (wikipedia does not mention this notion of closure I…
qartal
  • 805