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
1 answer

Do we sometimes have to go "each way" separately for iff proofs?

So, I often enjoy trying to prove "if and only if" statements by only using if and only if arguments. i.e. RTP: $A \Leftrightarrow D$. Proof: $A \Leftrightarrow B \Leftrightarrow C \Leftrightarrow D$ My question is whether or not this is always…
user37154
  • 307
2
votes
1 answer

What is the contrapositive of this case

What is the contrapositive of this case: If $f:X→Y$ is a continuous surjection bewteen separable compact metric spaces, where $X$ has dimension $n$ and $Y$ has dimension $m$, then there is a point $y∈Y$ whose preimage contains at least $n−m+1$…
DER
  • 3,011
2
votes
3 answers

Invalid Argument vs. Contradiction?

I'm confused about the differences between valid/invalid arguments and contradictions/tautologies. An argument is valid when the statement "all of it's hypothesis are true implies the conclusion" is a tautology. When we show an argument is invalid…
hefalump
  • 305
2
votes
1 answer

Proving the language of this pi calculus process

Can someone help me understand why $ L( P ) = a^n b^n c^n $ in the following pi - calculus process $$ P = ( \nu k_1, k_2, k_3, u_{b} , u_c)( \overline{k_1} \mid \overline{k_2} \mid Q_a \mid Q_b \mid Q_c) $$ $$Q_a = {!}k_1.a.( \overline{k_1} \mid…
user8250
  • 366
2
votes
1 answer

Formal "Hilbert-Style" Proof of a relatively simple statement

I'm trying to prove that $(\phi \to \psi) \to (\phi \to \exists v \psi)$ using a deduction from the formal Hilbert system, but I don't know how to proceed. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks.
2
votes
3 answers

How can I prove this statement by proving its contra-positive?

Prove the following statement by proving its contra-positive: If $ r $ is irrational, then $ r^{1/5} $ is irrational. I am totally confused! (1) How does proving the contra-positive prove the statement? (2) The only way I know how to describe this…
user139175
2
votes
3 answers

What does it mean that "the constants true and false can represented with only nand"?

Does this statement mean that you can represent true and false without using AND or OR? I figured out that $ \lnot A\,\text{nand}\, A = \text{true}$ But how can I represent $ \text{false} $ without using AND or OR... or does the question not imply…
user139175
2
votes
3 answers

Logic counterexample to argument

$\sim \forall x \; (M(x) \vee W(x))$ $\exists x \; \sim M(x)$ $\exists x \; \sim W(x)$ This argument is invalid, could any one please provide a counterexample? The first two lines are the premise, the sentence after the gap is the conclusion
2
votes
1 answer

$\mathsf{ZF} \vdash \exists x \forall y (y\notin x)$

I'm trying to give a formal proof of $\exists x \forall y (y\notin x)$ from $\mathsf{ZF}$. I know I need to use $\mathsf{Comprehension}$ and $\mathsf{Set}$ $\mathsf{Existence}$. I was wondering if, I could do: \begin{align*} &\forall z\exists x…
Rustyn
  • 8,407
2
votes
2 answers

Show that (($¬n) \rightarrow (n \rightarrow \theta))$ is a theorem of L, whenever $n, \theta$ are propositional formulas.

In a previous part of the question I have proved that $((\phi \rightarrow \psi) \rightarrow ((\psi \rightarrow \chi) \rightarrow (\phi \rightarrow \chi))$ is a theorem of L. Using the previous part of the question, show that (($¬n) \rightarrow (n…
ZZS14
  • 819
2
votes
2 answers

Example of an axiomatic system

Build an axiomatic system that is effective, complete but not valid. I thought as the only deduction rule $\psi \rightarrow \neg \psi $ and only axiom n $\approx$ n where theorem is $\neg[$ n $\approx$ n] but this is not true. Is this correct or…
Jhon Jairo
  • 1,031
2
votes
1 answer

How does one avoid circular reasoning?

How can you be reasonably assured that you are not engaging in circular reasoning when you invoke a theorem, lemma, etc.? For instance, what if you accidentally "prove" a theorem using a consequence of that theorem itself? Such a procedure was…
Steve
  • 65
2
votes
1 answer

Two questions regarding formal proofs

Assume that in a formal proof I have $T \cup \{ \varphi \} \vdash \varphi$ $T \cup \{ \varphi \} \vdash \lnot \varphi$ Question 1: can I then deduce $T \cup \{ \varphi \} \vdash \lnot \varphi \land \varphi$? I think there should be a rule of…
2
votes
1 answer

How to define "true" in a formal manner?

Title says it all. My understanding is that axiom system is a set of true propositions which are promises and self-evident. And to prove a proposition, we use deductive way to abbreviate as axioms or axiom based proved theorems or lemmas. From this…
Shin Kim
  • 783
2
votes
3 answers

Proof by induction of inadequacy of set of propositional connectives

So we have to show that given a particular set of propositional connectives that the set is not adequate. I am comfortable with what a set being adequate means but I can't get my head around why the proof by induction works and is sufficient. This…