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

How can I prove this propositional sequent without using the Principle of Explosion (ex falso quodlibet)

I'm beginning to study propositional logic from a book called Elementary Logic by Brian Garrett. In the chapter on the disjunctive connective, I've come across an exercise that seems to require the Principle of Explosion, but this rule is never…
sovpariah
  • 31
  • 3
2
votes
1 answer

What is the image of skolemization?

For simplicity, consider first order logic with one binary relation in the signature. Any $\forall x \exists y. \phi(x,y)$ gives rise to skolemization, converting the formula into $\forall x. \phi(x,f(x))$, and by that adding a function symbol to…
Troy McClure
  • 804
  • 4
  • 12
2
votes
2 answers

If $ p \rightarrow q $ and $q \rightarrow p$ are not tautolgies, is $ (p \rightarrow q) \rightarrow (q \rightarrow p)$ a tautology

If found a multiple choice question online: If $(p \rightarrow q) $ is not a tautology and $ (q \rightarrow p) $ is not a tautology, then: $ p \lor q $ is not a tautology $ p \lor q $ is a tautology $ p \land q $ is a contradiction $ (p \rightarrow…
talopl
  • 999
2
votes
2 answers

Math logic - What does $X\vdash a, a \in X$ mean?

Lets take, for example, the deduction theorem: For any Well Formed Formulas group $\Sigma$ and for any 2 formula $\alpha, \beta$ , $$\Sigma \cup \{\alpha\} \vdash \beta\iff\Sigma \vdash (\alpha\to\beta)$$ Question: What does $\vdash$ mean? and…
Billie
  • 3,449
2
votes
1 answer

Converting a QBFs Matrix into CNF, maintaining equisatisfiability

I have a fully quantified boolean formula in Prenix Normal Form $\Phi = Q_1 x_1, \ldots Q_n x_n . f(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$. As most QBF-Solvers expect $f$ to be in CNF, I use Tseitins Tranformation (Denoted by $TT$). This does not give an equivalent,…
Mike B.
  • 304
2
votes
1 answer

When I was scholar demonstrations were done with equivalences, but reasonings seem to say that using implications would be enough?

When I was scholar, quite every demonstration I saw was made using equivalence $\iff$ signs. But I came on a course teaching the reasoning available in mathematics, well named: "the toolbox for demonstrations". And among them, were: demonstration…
2
votes
0 answers

What is Propositional function in propositional calculus?

I am studying propositional logic and little bit confused with Propositional function. It is part of propositional calculus and it is similar to predicate. But predicates are part of First-order logic - also known as predicate logic. Do I understand…
Oleg Dats
  • 425
2
votes
5 answers

Could we build a truth table of "$P \Rightarrow \lnot P$"? What is its meaning and its Venn Diagram?

The usual truth table of $P \Rightarrow Q$ looks like this $P$ $Q$ $P \Rightarrow Q$ True True True True False False False True True False False True Before determine the truth or false of $P \Rightarrow Q$. $P \Rightarrow Q$ is…
2
votes
0 answers

Theorem weakening/strengthening confusion

I'm reading a paper right now, and one exctract goes like this: "Theorem 1: If conditions "...;$|A|
2
votes
2 answers

Does the principle of explosion follow from the stability axioms?

I am supposed to prove the drinker paradox - that is, the formula $$\lnot\forall_x\lnot (Px\to \forall_xPx)$$ for some relation symbol $P$. I know that it follows from the principle of explosion, which corresponds to the axiom $$\lnot A\to A\to…
Filippo
  • 3,536
2
votes
1 answer

Vacuous Domain Mixing For all and There Exists.

May be this is a stupid question but I was thinking we know that suppose $D = \varnothing$ then $\forall\, x \in D \,P(x)$ is true vacuously and $\exists y\in D\, P(y)$ is false. What is you mix the two like $\forall x \in D \,\,\exists \,y \in D…
mathnoob
  • 1,319
2
votes
0 answers

Logic: "XOR" or "OR"

The statement: Either ~p or it is the case that $(q\land r)$. This seems to me to indicate: $\lnot p\lor(q\land r)$. Am I correct? How would you in words describe the XOR relationship? And is this the correct representation of the XOR relationship?:…
2
votes
2 answers

How do I interpret this statement from syllogism?

I have a doubt in a particular statement: "Only A are B". Now I read it somewhere to interpret it as " All B are A". How do I relate the two statements? A detailed description about the same will be most welcome.
2
votes
2 answers

Understanding the conversion of the existential quantifier to the universal quantifier

I am trying to learn set theory on my own .. and the book introduced these suppositions I understand all of them except for the last one that converts the existential quantifier into the universal quantifier .. I understand what universal,…
A. S.
  • 107
2
votes
1 answer

How to translate this asserted symbolic tautology into natural language

On https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4nexform a set of slides (lecture material in German) is cited. On slide 6 the following tautology is written: $(\exists x B \rightarrow A) \leftrightarrow \forall x (B \rightarrow A) \quad x \notin…
cknoll
  • 437