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
2 answers

What is a Herbrand disjunction?

I am supposed to find a Herbrand Disjunction for the following formula: $$(\exists x)(P(f(f(x)))\supset P(x))$$ I'm still confused; what exactly is a Herbrand disjunction? Is it the same as a Herbrandization? I Googled Herbrand disjunction, but I…
Jakube
  • 1,847
2
votes
1 answer

Löb's theorem and working with connectives of two levels

I try to decipher Löb's theorem by getting rid of some of the material implications for something more intuitive and in using classical substitutions for connectives on both levels. I came up with the following $$([\text{PA} \vdash Bew(\# P)]…
Nikolaj-K
  • 12,249
2
votes
2 answers

Why do we write 'finite' as an adjective to proposition when defining an axiomatic system?

At 58:54, Professor Frederic Schuller defines an axiomatic system in the following way: An axiomatic system is a finite sequence of propositions $a_1,a_2....,a_n$ which are called axioms Why do we have the word finite before the sequence?…
2
votes
1 answer

Logical or statements

If there is a logical or statement, for example $a\vee b\vee c$, is the requirement that only one of $a$, $b$, or $c$ must be true for the statement $a\vee b\vee c$ to be true?
2
votes
2 answers

do two true statements always imply each other?

If A is "1+1=2" and B is "apple starts with a", does $A\implies B$?
2
votes
0 answers

Model-free speculation: ever useful or not?

A theory is a set of sentences in some language. Usually, theories relate to models. For example, Euclidian geometry has a model consisting of an infinite set of dots. A subset of the Euclidian theory may have different models satisfying it (e.g. a…
anon2328
  • 131
2
votes
1 answer

Proving a logic theorem

I am trying to prove this theorem : $((p ⇒ ¬ r) ∧ (s ∧ r ≡ ¬ q) ≢ ¬ ((r ⇒ ¬ s) ≡ q) ⇒ r ∧ p) ≡ p ∧ (p ⇒ r)$, but I am not sure where to start. $$((p ⇒ ¬ r) ∧ (s ∧ r ≡ ¬ q) ≢ ¬ ((r ⇒ ¬ s) ≡ q) ⇒ r ∧ p)$$ $$= ⟨ \text{Definition of ≢ with } p, q ≔…
Leo
  • 97
2
votes
1 answer

Questions about solving equations.

Should a backward or bi-directional arrow be used to link every statement in the process of solving an equation? It is often difficult to find what implies a statement than what the statement implies. I guess solving simple elementary equations is…
TFR
  • 342
2
votes
1 answer

Missing a logic argument

I have to prove $$(w ⇒ s ∨ p) ∧ (t ⇒ ¬ s) ⇒ (s ⇒ ¬ q)$$ Is there a way to make it right?
Leo
  • 97
2
votes
4 answers

Prove that there is a unique $A\in\mathscr{P}(U)$ such that for every $B\in\mathscr{P}(U), A\cup B = B$

$U$ can be any set. For the existence element of this proof, I have $A = \varnothing$ But it's for the uniqueness element of this proof where I am having trouble. So far I have: $\forall(C\in\mathscr{P}(U))(\forall(B\in\mathscr{P}(U))(C\cup…
Bavneet
  • 121
  • 6
2
votes
1 answer

What does it mean: “the closure of the axioms”?

«As we shall see, the logical axioms are so designed that the logical consequences (in the semantic sense, cf. p. 56) of the closure of the axioms of $K$ are precisely the theorems of $K$.» Page 60 “Introduction to Mathematical Logic“ SECOND EDITION…
2
votes
1 answer

When using a bounded existential quantifier, why can't I use an implication instead of a conjunction when expanding it to an unbounded quantifier?

∃ x ∈ A P ( x ) ∨ ∃ x ∈ B P ( x ) = ∃ x ( x ∈ A ∧ P ( x ) ) ∨ ∃ x ( x ∈ B ∧ P ( x ) ) ( ∀ x ∈ A P ( x ) ) ∧ ( ∀ x ∈ B P ( x ) ) = ( ∀ x ( x ∈ …
2
votes
1 answer

Interesting Logic

At a basketball fair, everyone is a fan of just one team (Celtics, Lakers, or 76ers). Celtics fans always lie to Lakers fans, Lakers fans always lie to 76ers Fans, and 76ers Fans always lie to Celtics fan. Other than this, everyone always tells the…
user855084
2
votes
1 answer

Can cardinality be used to express exactly one?

If I wanted to express the statement in predicate logic: 'There is exactly one apple that is green.' Would it be correct to say that if $x$ is an apple that is an element of $A$: {all apples} and that $G(x)$: $x$ is a green apple, that: 'There…
kooner3
  • 29
2
votes
2 answers

The negation of $\exists x \forall y \neg \forall z(P(x,y) \iff Q(x,y) \land R(x,y,z))$

I am trying to understand the negation of $\exists x \forall y \neg \forall z(P(x,y) \iff Q(x,y) \land R(x,y,z))$ As a side example if I have a statement $\neg \forall x P(x)$, then this is equivalent to $\exists x \neg P(x)$ where the negation is…