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
0 answers

Possible logical meanings of mathematical operations

I'm wondering if there are logical meanings for the mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) , from the perspective of each operand?
2
votes
3 answers

$¬((p_1 \rightarrow p_2)\rightarrow (p_2\rightarrow p_3))$ cannot be expressed using only connectives in $\{∧,\rightarrow\}$

Show that the formula $¬((p_1 \rightarrow p_2)\rightarrow (p_2\rightarrow p_3))$ is not logically equivalent to a formula involving only connectives from the set $\{∧,\rightarrow\}$. Am I correct in thinking it is because we cannot write the…
ZZS14
  • 819
2
votes
1 answer

A question to the proof of a lemma in Enderton's Mathematical Introduction to logic

I'm referring to the proof to Lemma $25\text{B} \ $,pg$\ 133$ of Enderton's Mathematical Introduction to Logic($2^\text{nd}$ edition): $\overline s(u^{x}_{t})=\overline {s(x|\overline s(t))}(u).$ The author gives a brief induction proof on the term…
2
votes
1 answer

If-Then statements

I am trying to prove a statement of the form: If A and B, then C. Is this equivalent to the following statement? Given A, if B, then C.
2
votes
1 answer

How to quantify a specify amount in logic

I'm looking for a way to specify the number of times an event happens in a Discourse Representation Structure, basically using first order predicate logic. I have the existential and universal quantifiers available, but I'm looking for a way to say…
Omdb
  • 21
2
votes
2 answers

How to explain the power of PA to non-logicians

I plan to give a talk to a group of math PhD students (with no exposure to mathematical logic. I should also mention that I'm certainly no logician, myself) about the incompleteness theorems. I plan to first prove Tarski's theorem on the arithmetic…
Tim kinsella
  • 5,903
2
votes
2 answers

What is the difference between Leibniz's Law phrased as a schema and as a second-order axiom?

I have occasionally come across Leibniz's Law (left to right, ie the indiscernibility of identicals) written with schematic letters in the consequent, and occasionally with a bound predicate-variable taking the place of the schematic letters. What…
2
votes
1 answer

Proof that any other 2 argument logic function other than NAND or NOR is not functionally complete

Any tips how to prove the title? I know how to show that NAND and NOR are functionally complete, but how do you prove reverse for any other 2 argument logic function?
Damaon
  • 287
2
votes
2 answers

Predicate Logic

I'm studying for an exam, and I'm not really sure how to portray this. The domain is all people. $V (w) = w$ is a voter $P (w) = w$ is a politician $K (y, z) = y$ knows $z$ $T (y, z) = y$ trusts $z$ Cal ($c$) is a voter who knows everyone. Would…
switz
  • 429
2
votes
2 answers

Problem translating predicate syllogistic

I have a question about the following predicates: No A are B $$ \neg \exists x (Ax\wedge Bx) $$ For the above, my question is: why can't I write the following? $$ \neg \exists x (Ax\rightarrow Bx) $$ How would this one be translated to…
2
votes
1 answer

Question about the definition of a logical polynomial

My logic book defines a logical polynomials as follows: To define what a tautology is, we first introduce the notion of a logical polynomial over a set of formulas $\scr{E}$. This is an element in the minimal set of formulas that contains…
Amr
  • 20,030
2
votes
2 answers

Resolution Proof Question

Given the implication $[(p\vee (q\wedge r) \wedge (p\to s)] \to (r\vee s)$, establish the validity of the argument using resolution. This is the answer my textbook gave: $$\begin{array}{rll}1&p\vee(q\wedge r)&\textrm{Premise}\\ 2&(p\vee…
Simon
  • 33
2
votes
3 answers

math into logic

How does one translate Godel sentence about the integers into "This sentence is not provable" and Rosser's sentence into "If this sentence is provable, there is a shorter proof of its negation". If I write down a sentence in logic, how can one…
TROLLHUNTER
  • 8,728
2
votes
1 answer

Logical form of "All present Kings of France are bald."

I'm reading Severin Schroeder's Wittgenstein right now. In the "Between Vienna and Cambridge" chapter he introduces Russell's and Whitehead's Logical Formalization: x and y is $x \supset y$ and if x then y is $x . y$ and so on. Now in the "Tractatus…
2
votes
3 answers

Deduction theorem explanation

Can someone please explain Deduction theorem in Logic. I am using the textbook "Mathematical Logic" for Tourlakis. I can't understand it at all.