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

Understanding connection between terms tautology, contradiction, contingent, satisfiable, unsatisfiable, valid and invalid

Couple of days back I asked this question. And after reading comments and answer there, even though I knew the definitions of the different terms (tautology, contradiction, contingent, satisfiable, unsatisfiable, valid and invalid) involved, I was…
RajS
  • 1,317
2
votes
1 answer

Truth functional completness for quantifiers

There is a definition for truth-functional completness for a set of propositional connectives. Is there a definition for truth-functional completness of a set of quantifiers and propositional connectives ?
Amr
  • 20,030
2
votes
2 answers

Why if $\alpha$ is a logical axiom, then $\alpha^{c}_{y}$ is also a logic axiom?

On page 123, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Herbert B. Enderton(2ed)(A part of proof 24F,"GENERALIZATION ON CONSTANTS") $\alpha$ is a logical axiom, then $\alpha^{c}_{y}$ is also a logic axiom.(Read the list of logical axioms and note that…
2
votes
3 answers

An invalid argument with one or more false premises

This is an exercise from A Modern Formal Logic Primer (Teller): 4-1. Give examples, using sentences in English, of arguments of each of the following kind. Use examples in which it is easy to tell whether the premises and the conclusion are in…
2
votes
1 answer

Arithmetic hierarchy

I'm curious by Arithmetic Hierarchy. I'm trying to do the following ones: 1) How to show that $\{e\mid \mathrm{dom}(\phi_e)\text{ is recursive}\}$ is $\Sigma_3^0$? For showing this, I need to really relate it to the characteristic function. 2)…
Buddy Holly
  • 1,189
2
votes
1 answer

Assuming $\Sigma \vdash \eta$, what is the deduction for $\Sigma \vdash \neg\eta \rightarrow \eta$?

Assuming $\Sigma \vdash \eta$, what is the deduction for $\Sigma \vdash \neg\eta \rightarrow \eta$? I understand that $\Sigma \vdash \eta \rightarrow \Sigma \cup\neg\eta \vdash \eta$, but I'm trying to specifically find the derivation for…
Oliver G
  • 4,792
2
votes
1 answer

Example of $ψ$ such that $\Gamma \vdash ¬∀x ψ$ and $\Gamma \nvdash ¬ψ^x_t$

On page 121, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Herbert B. Enderton(2ed), 3c. The remaining case is where $ϕ$ is $¬∀x ψ$. (In order to show $\Gamma \vdash ¬∀x ψ$)It would suffice to show that $ \Gamma \vdash¬ψ^x_t$ , where $t$ is some term…
2
votes
1 answer

How to prove that "n number of proposition(s) give rise to 2^(n) number of truth-value combinations" using mathematical induction?

In proposition logic, alphabets are used to represent atomic propositions, understood as a grammatically correct expression in formal language. Every atomic proposition is either true or false and the combination of atomic propositions using…
user628101
  • 23
  • 2
2
votes
2 answers

Can truth in first order theories be defined without set theory?

As far as I understand, we define truth in first order theories like predicate calculus or PA by working in some stronger first order theory like set theory. Is it true? Are there other attempts in defining truth in first order theories without…
2
votes
3 answers

Writing "a function is integrable provided it is continous" in the form "if $P$ then $Q$".

I came across the statement "a function is integrable provided it is continous" and was asked to rewrite it in the form "If $P$ then $Q$". I identified from the initial statment that the continous condition of a function is a neccassary one for a…
2
votes
2 answers

Does (If not P then Q) imply (If P then Q)? My truth table says yes but I want verification

As the title says, is this true? $$(\lnot P \to \lnot Q) \to (P \to Q)$$ The truth table is \begin{array}{rrrrrr} P & Q & \lnot P & \lnot Q & \lnot P \to \lnot Q & P \to Q & (\lnot P \to \lnot Q) \to (P \to Q) \\ \hline T…
000
  • 27
2
votes
1 answer

Is this a proposition?

For $x$ in the set of real numbers If $x^{2} > 0$ then $x > 0$ I am unsure whether this is a proposition. If $x^2 > 0$ is true then $x > 0$ is false and hence the statement is false. If $x^2 > 0$ is false $(x^2 = 0)$ then $x > 0 $ is false and hence…
2
votes
1 answer

Number theoretical assumptions in metamathematics and axiomatization of PA

This question has probably come up many times before so I will make sure to be explicit as possible for the things I am confused about and I hope that you can help me! The main problem for me is the justification of number-theoretical results in…
2
votes
1 answer

Boolean-valued models. Why does the BA need to be complete?

In the Wikipedia article "Boolean-valued model", one reads: In a Boolean-valued model, the truth values of propositions are not limited to "true" and "false", but instead take values in some fixed complete Boolean algebra. This statement about…
Beginner
  • 574
2
votes
1 answer

How to justify banning $A\to (B\to (A\land B))$ in relevance logic?

(Follow-up to Which line(s) of my proof of $A\to (\neg A \to B)$ are not allowed in relevance logic? ) Theorem: $A\to (B\to (A\land B))$ Proof: $A\space\space$ (assume) $B\space\space$ (assume) $A\land B\space\space$ (intro $\land$ 1,2) $B \to…