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
2
votes
3 answers

How to express the meaning I mention in one formula?

There are two points: $(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)$, if $|y_2-y_1|>|x_2-x_1|$ then $\tan(A)=\frac{|y_2-y_1|}{|x_2-x_1|}$ else if $|y_2-y_1|<|x_2-x_1|$ then $\tan(A)=\frac{|x_2-x_1|}{|y_2-y_1|}$ My question is, how to express the above meaning in one…
2
votes
2 answers

Precedence in Math (When to use a symbol when it has 2+ meanings?)

Equation in question: \[ \forall n \in \mathbb{N} : n^2 \ge n \] The symbol $:$ is a symbol for "such that" $\forall$ for all, for any, for each When do you know when to use: for all, for any, for each? Does it matter which one you use, or are there…
2
votes
2 answers

I there a rigorous, mathematical, approach to definitions (denotations)?

In mathematical logic, a definition is treated as an abbreviation - a denotation which simplifies the discourse making it shorter. This is so much so that in a formal theory or a logic we can do without definitions. Thus, logicians did not seem to…
2
votes
2 answers

Logic question for a program I'm designing

I'm developing an application in ASP.NET with C# and i'm trying to figure out the best way to implement a logic statement that will stop the system from allowing another reservation to be taken if the trailer for canoes and kayaks is full. The issue…
user3267755
  • 123
  • 2
2
votes
2 answers

How to formalize special cases in logic?

Say I have some object or quantity and an instance or special case of it, how to formally write this down? I don't (just) mean that $X$ is a set and $x$ an element, i.e. $x\in X$ is not it. I'm dealing with things as general like "the specific…
Nikolaj-K
  • 12,249
2
votes
1 answer

Ramified Type Theory: Determining Orders/Levels

I understand how to determine order in unramified type theory. But, how do you determine order and level in ramified type theory (per Church's interpretation of Russell)? The example given in the Routledge Encyclopedia (Napoleon having the…
2
votes
1 answer

An extension of PA which is not true theory?

K is said to be a true theory if all proper of K are true in the standard model. Please show that there is an ω-consistent extension K of PA such that K is not a true theory. I think this is a strange assertion which states we can extend PA to a…
user87128
2
votes
1 answer

Translation question from english to symbolic sentence?

Universe the real numbers. between any integer and any larger integer there is a real number. $\forall x \forall y$ $(x \in Z \wedge y \in Z \wedge y>x \rightarrow \exists k (x
Fernando Martinez
  • 6,698
  • 19
  • 74
  • 108
2
votes
1 answer

How to know if a formula is preserved

Can you help me determine how to know if a formula is preserved? My book has 3 sentences about it that being variables and named variables get the same value in the model and sub model "Exist" Quantifier formulas are preserved up "For all"…
Lena Bru
  • 173
2
votes
1 answer

First Order Logic (deduction proof in Hilbert system)

Possible Duplicate: First order logic proof question I need to prove this: ⊢ (∀x.ϕ) →(∃x.ϕ) Using the following axioms: The only thing I did was use deduction theorem: (∀x.ϕ) ⊢(∃x.ϕ) And then changed (∃x.ϕ) into (~∀x.~ϕ), so: (∀x.ϕ) ⊢…
DillPixel
  • 227
2
votes
1 answer

Neither,nor logic question.

I have a question on sentential logic. I have the following sentence that needs to be translated: "Pudding is neither good nor fattening." G=Pudding is good. F=Pudding is fattening. I gave the following answer : not G and not F But it seems that the…
user108343
2
votes
1 answer

Proving transitivity of $\vDash$ and and $\vdash$

I was given this excercise and find myself unable to tackle it (beginner here): Prove that $\models$ is transitive, i.e. prove that if $\varphi\models\psi$ and $\psi\models\chi$, then $\varphi\models\chi$. Similarily, prove that $\vdash$ is…
Alzbeta
  • 39
2
votes
1 answer

Is it impossible from a true statement $P$ to imply a false statement $Q$?

Is it impossible from a true statement $P$ to imply a false statement $Q$? In the language of an implication: $P \Rightarrow Q$, where $P$ is true and $Q$ is false. In other words is it impossible to deduce from a true statement $P$ a false…
Shuzheng
  • 5,533
2
votes
2 answers

What is negation of this statement?

What is the negation of this statement? Let the sequences $\{x_{n}\}$ and $\{y_{n}\}$ be given. There exist a positive rational $a$ and a positive integer $N$ such that $x_{n} - y_{n} \geq a$ for all positive integer $n$ with $n \geq N$. My answer…
fiverules
  • 777
2
votes
2 answers

Prove by a theorem.

I was given a statement and then asked for my opinion whether the statement is True or False with some additional proof. Surprisingly, I found out that the statement was an actual theorem showing that the statement was indeed true. My question is:…
Sai82
  • 417
  • 1
  • 5
  • 14