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
4 answers

If $(P \implies Q),$ then $\lnot(P\land\lnot Q)$

In this correct: If $(P \implies Q)$ is true, then $\lnot(P\land\lnot Q)$ is true. I came up with this in my search to understand implication and the two troublesome, for me, lines in the truth table. I am only able to write this sentence, I do…
user756686
2
votes
1 answer

Is propositional logic language dependent

I found this: English to Logic essay It is very clear right up to the paragraph on material implication. In that paragraph it gives many examples of English language expressions that can be construed to be essentially an "if-then" sentence core. …
user756686
2
votes
1 answer

Logical Equivalence - Difference between ∃x∀y P(x , y) and ∀y∃x P(x , y)

I must be missing something here because these two statements look identical to me in regards to their truth tables. To me, ∃x∀y P(x , y) and ∀y∃x P(x , y) are logically equivalent... a) What is the difference between the quantification ∃x∀y P (x ,…
Kris
2
votes
2 answers

Is a reasoning valid when no rows where all premises are true in a truth table?

In forall x: Calgary, by P. D. Magnus, appears this reasoning: $\neg(A \land B), A \lor B, A \leftrightarrow B \therefore C$ Examining its truth table, I see there are no rows where all premises happen to be true. Is this reasoning still valid ?
F. Zer
  • 2,325
  • 1
  • 8
  • 21
2
votes
5 answers

Why do we need formal logic proofs when we have truth tables?

Truth tables are capable of demonstrating the validity of a formal logic statement. This can be done extremely quickly using technology and it doesn't require any high-level proof rules (everything can be calculated on a fundamental level). In…
2
votes
1 answer

Complete theory of arithmetic?

I read in another post (Why don't we use Presburger's arithmetic instead of Peano's arithmetic?) the following exposition: Godel's incompleteness theorem, philosophically (and morally) speaking it says that a consistent theory cannot have all the…
J.Qu
  • 33
2
votes
3 answers

Are there any properties that occur for every finite subset of a set, but do not apply to the entire set?

I happened to come across the compactness theorem for propositional logic.. It struck me as odd that we needed to prove that a property such as a model existing for the set exists iff there exists a model for each finite subset. I feel like such a…
crommy
  • 131
2
votes
1 answer

Proving $p\iff q$ when $p$ is true.

To prove $p\iff q$ when $p$ is true, do I only have to show $q$ must be true? Since $p$ is true, the only possible cases are '$p$ is true and $q$ is true' and '$p$ is true and $q$ is false'. So I only have to show $q$ must be true. Is that correct?
user682705
2
votes
2 answers

Show that $p \Rightarrow (\neg(q \land \neg p))$ is a tautology

I just need my solution checked since I'm not sure if it's valid, especially the final statement Question: Show $p \Rightarrow (\neg(q \land \neg p))$ is a tautology by assuming: $u \Rightarrow v$ is logically equivalent to $\neg u \lor v$ My…
Arvin
  • 1,733
2
votes
2 answers

Logical errors in math deductions

Sometimes in mathematics we do this a lot: Suppose that to find a function $y_1(x)$ that satisfies some equation (any type of equation, differential or whatever..): $$F(y_1(x))=0$$ In order to find the solution we need to apply to the last equation…
Ambesh
  • 3,312
2
votes
2 answers

What does it mean to prove if $p$ then $q$?

Does that mean to prove $p\rightarrow q$ is a true statement? Then since when $p$ is false, $p\rightarrow q$ is vacuously true, do I only have to prove $q$ is true when $p$ is true?
user682705
2
votes
4 answers

How to Prove $((F \iff H) \iff ((\neg F \land \neg H) \lor (F \land H)))$

I am at a complete loss here... $(F \iff H)$ PREMISE ... $((\neg F \land \neg H) \lor (F \land H))$ GOAL I keep getting stuck in a loop of contradiction and not able to complete the proof. I can use the following rules to complete the proof:…
2
votes
1 answer

What is the absolute minimal set of syntactic types necessary to set up the syntax for first-order logic?

The syntax for first-order logic can be sorted into two kinds, namely: Logical symbols (constants) Connectives: $∧, ∨, ¬, \rightarrow, \leftrightarrow$ Variables: $v_{0},v_{1},v_{2},\dots$ Equality: = Parentheses: (, ) Nonlogical symbols…
Nika
  • 727
2
votes
1 answer

A question about consistent axiomatizable extensions of PA

Given $T\supset PA$ to be consistent and axiomatizable, I've been told that when $G\subset T$ is finite, and $\phi$ is a universal sentence, then: ($\star$) $PA\vdash ((Pr_G(\underline\phi)\wedge con_G)\implies \phi) $ I can see that $PA\vdash…
user52534
  • 751
2
votes
1 answer

How To Prove It: Exercise 1.1.4

I am working through Velleman's "How to Prove It", and I have some uncertainties about this exercise. Analyze the logical forms of the following statements: Either both Ralph and Ed are tall, or both of them are handsome. Both Ralph and Ed are…
Iyeeke
  • 962