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

What is the distinction between operator and predicate in this presentation?

Professor Peter Koellner, In a talk entitled 'On the Question of Whether the Mind Can be Mechanized' (slides), about Penrose's argument against strong AI, formalizes the concept of absolute provability (i.e. what can be produced by the idealized…
sdenham
  • 131
2
votes
3 answers

Meaning of vacously true statement

I'm stuck with the concept of vacously true statement. For example, I know that the statement "Every element of the empty set is a zebra" is a vacously true statement because we can't find an element of the empty set which IS NOT a zebra. However,…
2
votes
3 answers

Can the negation introduction rule of inference be used instead of the usual rule?

Can the negation introduction rule of inference, $$\begin{array}{c} a\\ b\longrightarrow \neg a\\ \hline \neg b \end{array}\qquad\qquad\qquad (1)$$ be used instead of the usual $$\begin{array}{c} b\longrightarrow a\\ b\longrightarrow \neg…
mtanti
  • 211
2
votes
0 answers

Correspondence between open (closed) subsets of the Stone space of a boolean algebra and ideals (filters) on B

I'm trying to prove the following properties: Given a boolean algebra $B$, $U\subseteq St(B)$ is open if and only if $\{c\in B : N_c\subseteq U\}$ is an ideal on $B$; $F\subseteq St(B)$ is closed if and only if $\{c\in B : N_c\supseteq F\}$ is a…
mimar
  • 149
2
votes
3 answers

Ambiguity of ∃x∀y logical syntax?

I often see statements such as $\exists x \forall y (P(x,y))$. If I read this literally, it says “There exists an x for every y, such that (Something about $x$ and $y$).” However, I get the impression that it’s supposed to be read “There exists an…
2
votes
1 answer

Is $∃!x(x^2 = 1)$ true?

for a question that I have it is asking for the truth value of $∃!x(x^2 = 1)$ my instincts tell me no because there are 2 values that make it true. Am I right?
AGarza
  • 115
2
votes
1 answer

Question about independent equivalent subset

I am having trouble with Problem 1.2.10a, page 28 of Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Say that a set $\Sigma_1$ of wffs is equivalent to a set $\Sigma_2$ of wffs iff for any wff a, we have $\Sigma_1$ $\models$ a iff $\Sigma_2$…
2
votes
1 answer

Does the fragment of intuitionistic propositional calculus with just $\to$ have a finitely-valued semantics?

Intuitionistic propositional calculus (IPC) has a topological semantics. IPC also does not have a sound and complete semantics with finitely many truth values. I'm curious whether the fragment of IPC with only the connective $\to$ and no truth value…
Greg Nisbet
  • 11,657
2
votes
1 answer

What is relation between Gentzen consistency proof and Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

From my current understanding these 2 theorems are talking about different things. Gödel proved that arithmetic cannot demonstrate its own consistency. Gentzen proved that arithmetic is consistent but we need additional separate system (without…
Oleg Dats
  • 425
2
votes
4 answers

Propositional Logic Question Related to Understanding "→" and Tautologies

I should preface this with that I have never studied logic before. When answering my question, please assume that I know nothing about formal logic. Just now, I was reading a different question and one of answers gave the…
Gnosis
  • 23
2
votes
1 answer

Prove $\forall x[Fx \to Gx] : \exists x[Fx] \to \exists y[Gy]$ in 7 lines

The problem is based on Tomassi's Logic - Exercise 6.3 Question 10 (1). The object is to prove $\forall x[Fx \to Gx] : \exists x[Fx] \to \exists y[Gy]$ in 7 lines. All deductive apparatus is allowed except EE or any Passing Rules (can do the proof…
Ten O'Four
  • 1,056
2
votes
0 answers

What is the best path to learn intuitionistic logic?

Is it preferred to look at intuitionistic logic as a special case of classical logic then branch from there since the two are largely similar aside from the results built on LEM, DNE and CP? or, since intuitionistic logic is the "weaker" version,…
msaa
  • 43
2
votes
0 answers

Does a dead-end world count as transitive and converse well-founded?

If I can prove that a formula is invalid at a dead-end world, does that suffice to show that it is invalid on a transitive and converse well-founded frame?
2
votes
1 answer

Contraposition's value is rigorous logical reasoning

I don't remember where but I read in the past that contrapositive proofs should be avoided when possible. fast forward and I became almost obsessed with why contraposition is still used when it has so many flaws (Hempel's raven for example). For…
msaa
  • 43
2
votes
4 answers

How can this implication be equal to the set of all possible evaluations?

I am having a hard time with this (simple) excercise in logic: First, let us define the set $M$ which contains all possible evaluations. Then, for each proposition sentence $A$, we define a set $[A] = \{ v \in M | v(A) = 1 \}$ So, the task is to…