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
9
votes
3 answers

What is an axiom schema?

ZFC is not finitely axiomatizable. But it is, (and I know this is not precise yet) finitely axiom-schematizable. So my question is, what exactly is an axiom schema of a logical calculus like first order logic or propositional logic, such as ((A AND…
user107952
  • 20,508
9
votes
2 answers

Gödel's Completeness Theorem and satisfiability of a formula in first-order logic

Gödel's original proof of the Completeness Theorem for first-order logic proves it in the equivalent form : a formula $\varphi$ is satisfiable or $\varphi$ is refutable (i.e.$\vdash \lnot \varphi$). Assuming classical logic, someone can exhibit an…
9
votes
1 answer

Formal logic systems, how do we prove theorems about them?

One of the reasons for the existence of formal logic systems is to establish the foundations of mathematics. To have all theories constructed and proven using particular syntactic rules based on a proof theory. If so, how do we prove that a formal…
leolol
  • 91
9
votes
1 answer

Is there such a thing as "coaxioms"?

Loosely speaking, category theory suggests that "equivalence relation" is dual to "subset." Anyway, since axioms correspond to subclasses of the possible models of a signature, is there some notion of "coaxiom" that corresponds to making…
goblin GONE
  • 67,744
9
votes
2 answers

Any inconsistent theory must be complete?

Assume the following definitions: $U$ is the set of all sentences in a language A theory $T$ is complete if $\forall A \in U$, $A \in T$ or ${\sim} A \in T$ or both. A theory is consistent if at most one of $A \in T$ or ${\sim} A \in T$ is…
boots
  • 111
9
votes
2 answers

Prove that $\beta \rightarrow \neg \neg \beta$ is a theorem using standard axioms 1,2,3 and MP

I've proven that $\neg \neg \beta \rightarrow \beta$ is a theorem, but I can't figure out a way to do the same for $\beta \rightarrow \neg \neg \beta$. It seems the proof would use Axiom 2 and the deduction theorem (which allows $\beta$ to be an…
Mahir
  • 101
9
votes
3 answers

Logically speaking, why can variables be substituted?

Suppose that $$a^2+a+1=b$$ Suppose also that $a=5/4$. What makes it valid to substitute $5/4$ into the first equation? Is it because equality is transitive?
9
votes
2 answers

Why does the semantics of first order logic require the domain to be non-empty?

The various descriptions of the semantics of First Order Logic that I have seen all require that the domain is non-empty. Why this restriction? It means that certain sentences e.g. $\exists x \; p \lor \neg p$, which seem to me to be contingent,…
9
votes
5 answers

Question about implication

I have question about something i don't understand. $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ are statements. if $\alpha\implies\beta\lor\gamma$ then it's necessary that $\alpha\implies\beta$ or $\alpha\implies\gamma$. that answer is "no" but i can't…
EMDB1
  • 477
  • 2
  • 8
9
votes
1 answer

Cheese has holes. More cheese = more holes, more holes = less cheese, more cheese = less cheese.

I found this statement on the internet and I would like to know why this is a fallacy. Cheese has holes. More cheese = more holes More holes = less cheese More cheese = less cheese Why is this false? The second and the third statements contradict…
9
votes
0 answers

Open problems that can be stated in Presburger arithmetic

It is known that Presburger arithmetic is decidable, but algorithms for solving the decision problem for it can take very long (over double exponential time in statement length). The fact that the algorithms can take so long suggests that there are…
9
votes
1 answer

Compactness theorem equivalent

I've been reading Enderton's Mathematical Introduction to Logic. One of the exercises on Compactness theorem requires the proof that the following corollary [(Corollary 17A) Suppose $\Sigma \models \tau$, then there is a finite $\Sigma_0 \subseteq…
User1234
  • 333
9
votes
3 answers

What's the problem this logic

In Lewis Carroll's story "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles," the swiftfooted warrior has caught up with the plodding tortoise, defying Zeno's paradox in which any head start given to the tortoise should rilake him uncatchable. (In the time it…
user4951
  • 1,714
9
votes
3 answers

Difference between consistency and satisfiability

If a set of formula is consistent, there exist a model in which every formula is true. This is only if the set is satisfiable. But satisfiability is the fact that it can be true so what is the difference between the 2 notions ?
9
votes
1 answer

Proofs of consistency for two formal systems

Do there exist two formal systems, $F_1$ and $F_2$, such that $F_1$ proves $F_2$ is consistent and $F_2$ proves $F_1$ is consistent? Would these proofs bypass Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem? By "consistent", I mean the formal system does…