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

Elementary question regarding sentential logic

Sorry if this question is too elementary than usual for this site, but I'm trying to analyze the logical form of the following statement: 3 is a common divisor of 6, 9, and 15. I'm not sure how to go about constructing its logical form. I'm…
2
votes
1 answer

Under what conditions does $\forall x(\alpha \to \beta) \leftrightarrow (\forall x \alpha \to \forall x \beta)$ hold?

It's a logical axiom that $\forall x(\alpha \to \beta) \to (\forall x \alpha \to \forall x \beta)$. However, it's generally not true that $\forall x(\alpha \to \beta) \leftarrow (\forall x \alpha \to \forall x \beta)$, except for some trivial case,…
2
votes
1 answer

Prove $(R \implies W) \wedge (R \implies \neg S) = R \implies (\neg S \wedge W)$

Prove $(R \implies W) \wedge (R \implies \neg S) = R \implies (\neg S \wedge W)$. Here is my work so far: $$(R \implies W) \wedge (R \implies \neg S) \\ \equiv ((\neg R \vee W) \wedge (\neg R \vee \neg S) \\ \equiv ((\neg R\ \vee W)\wedge \neg R)…
2
votes
5 answers

What is logical about the prisoner's dilemma?

In the Wikipedia example of The Prisoner's Dilemma it states that "all purely rational self-interested prisoners will betray the other, meaning the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each…
2
votes
1 answer

Proving equivalence of natural deduction and Hilbert systems for classical logic

I was reading this question which asks how to prove equivalence of natural deduction and Hilbert systems in the sense: For all formulas, $M$, $\hspace{0.3cm} \Gamma \vdash_{H} M$ iff $\Gamma \vdash_N M$ is derivable, where $\Gamma$ is finite and…
stranger
  • 473
2
votes
3 answers

Proving negation with multiple conditions

Suppose that there is some condition A that is only true iff condition 1 and condition 2 are true. Now suppose that there is some result B and I'm trying to prove A ⇔ B. I can prove A ⇒ B, but to prove B ⇒ A I'm trying to show ¬A ⇒ ¬B. Now the…
Ben
  • 33
2
votes
1 answer

About Logic proof

I solute this question like that and the question need to use the logic to proof that the first part implies the second part is true is my solute right or not , would appreciate any help. \begin{align} \neg (p\wedge\neg Q) \vee Q & \implies \neg p…
2
votes
2 answers

Relationship between consistency, strong completeness and soundness

I have trouble understanding the explanation provided in my notes which goes as follows: A set $\Sigma$ of L-formulas being inconsistent means $\Sigma\vdash\bot$. Sound means $\Gamma\vdash\phi$ implies $\Gamma\models\phi$. It follows from soundness…
idkla
  • 39
2
votes
2 answers

I am asked to use fitch to prove this statement (P → (Q → R)) ↔ ((P ∧ Q) → R)

I am asked to use fitch to prove this statement (P → (Q → R)) ↔ ((P ∧ Q) → R) This is what i've tried:
ActuS98
  • 101
  • 3
2
votes
2 answers

A type of algae grows continuously such that its population doubles after 3 days. What's the population after 10 days?

A type of algae grows continuously so that its population doubles in 3 days. Given a beginning population of 100 algae cells per milliliter of water, to the nearest whole number, how many algae cells would you expect at the end of 10 days? I…
Max0815
  • 3,505
2
votes
6 answers

Prove $(P\to Q) \lor (Q\to P)$

Prove that $(P\to Q) \lor (Q\to P)$ In natural language, it reads as: if $P$ then $Q$, or if $Q$ then $P$
aaron
  • 53
2
votes
1 answer

English statement to logical expression

Let $L(x,y)$ be the statement "x loves y", where the domain for both x and y consists of all people in the world. Express the below statement using quantifiers and predicates. "There is exactly one person whom everybody loves". My work: This can be…
2
votes
4 answers

Is ~(a AND b) same as (~a OR ~b)? How is the negation distributed inside brackets in logic statements?

I'm confused over how negation is distributed in logic statements/boolean algebra when the negation is outside the bracket. Do we just put the negation in each variable like normal distribution? Like for ~(a AND b) would it just be (~a OR ~b) both…
bob_xxx
  • 21
2
votes
2 answers

Why universal statements are restricted by conditional and existential statements are restricted by a conjunction?

I have asked a concrete example here. The accepted answer said: $$\forall x\in A: P(x)\iff \forall x~(x\in A\to P(x))\\\exists y\in B: Q(y)\iff \exists y~(y\in B\land Q(y))$$ which means universal statements are restricted by conditional and…
JOHN
  • 1,176
  • 9
  • 26
2
votes
1 answer

Difference between if A, then B, and A and B

I am reading the book How to prove it, and doing some of the exercise. In section 2.2, it asked us to negate the statement: Everyone has a roommate who dislike everyone. And then reexpress the results as equivalent positive statements. My trial: Let…
JOHN
  • 1,176
  • 9
  • 26