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

Truth-functionality of the "If-Then" connective in English

A question in my logic class involves talking about the "if...then" connective in English and its mirror is sentential logic notation: the material conditional connective (denoted $\supset$). The question is: It is uncontroversial that in an…
2
votes
1 answer

Proof of recursion proof.

Let $P_n, n\in\mathbb N$ a property. We suppose that $P_{n_0}$ is true for a certain $n_0\in \mathbb N$ and that $P_n$ true implies $P_{n+1}$ true for all $n\geq n_0$. Prove that $P_n$ is true for all $n\geq n_0$. Attempts Suppose it's no true, and…
user380364
  • 1,947
2
votes
5 answers

Who broke the vase ? logic question.

One of Kane, Dave, Ron or Rose broke a vase. The following is what each of them had to tell about the person who broke the vase: Kane: Dave broke it. Dave: Kane lied. Ron: Kane broke it. Rose: I did not break it. (a) If only one of these…
Angelo Mark
  • 5,954
2
votes
2 answers

Open axioms of equality

I have a doubt. I need help. Can the basic axioms of equality be presented as "open axioms"? I) (reflexivity) $\qquad x = x$ II) (Substitutivity) $\qquad (x = y) \to \big(F (x, x) \to F (x, y)\big)$
Paulo Argolo
  • 4,210
2
votes
3 answers

$(P \wedge Q \rightarrow R) \leftrightarrow (P \wedge \lnot R \rightarrow \lnot Q)$

I guess the biggest issue for me is not knowing how to work with $\wedge$. I'm not new to the concept of proof... just formal proofs. Here is my attempt: Show: $(P \wedge \lnot R \rightarrow \lnot Q)$ $P \wedge \lnot R$ Show $\lnot Q$ $Q$. …
user351797
  • 1,005
2
votes
1 answer

Proof of statement in predicate logic (divisibility)

I'd like to ask if someone can help me out with proof of this statement. I have to proof this statement for x,y,z $\in$ $\Bbb N$ I was thinking about proving the (∃z) part. By showing atleast 1 situation where it is…
Noturab
  • 497
2
votes
4 answers

Why is p ∧ q ⇒ r true when p is true and q is false?

I'm taking Intro to Logic on Coursera. One of the exercises has this: Consider a truth assignment in which p is true, q is false, r is true. Use this truth assignment to evaluate the following sentences. The answer key says $p ∧ q ⇒ r$ is true,…
2
votes
1 answer

Proving that every boolean function can be represented as a propositional logic formula.

I'm currently struggling a bit on this question. I tried induction on the number of parameters. Induction. Start $n=0$: Let $f$ be a boolean function with $0$ parameters. 2 Cases: $f()=0$ or $f()=1$ For case 1 we have a formula like $a \land \lnot…
asddf
  • 1,733
2
votes
2 answers

Logical equivalence of two expressions

Suppose one is transforming the first order logic formula $\exists x(\phi(x))$ into $\phi(a)$ by Skolemization, where $a$ is a fresh constant. I understand that this preserves consistency, i.e. if the first expression is true in at least one case…
Froskoy
  • 701
  • 1
  • 8
  • 14
2
votes
1 answer

Which of the following is a valid first order formula?

Here $p(x)$ and $q(x)$ are first order formulae with $x$ as their free variable $\Big( \forall x[p(x) \Rightarrow q(x)] \Big) \Rightarrow \Big(\forall x[p(x)] \Rightarrow \forall x[q(x)] \Big)$ $ \Big(\forall x [p(x)] \Rightarrow \forall x[q(x)]…
2
votes
2 answers

Predicate calculus-is there a way to prove that a false term can implicate anything and is therefore true?

I'm currently trying to solve the following: (∃x(¬A(x))) → [∀x (A(x)) → B(z) ] using only the rules of predicate and propositional calculus. I've had a few stabs at the problem. My chief idea has to do with the A(x) statements. I understand…
2
votes
1 answer

Frequency Logic

Person A is present 100% of the time, and person B is present 50% of the time. In relation to eachother, person A consumes 66% of the time and person B consumes 33% of the time. When a person is present, the do a task periodically and alternate when…
2
votes
0 answers

Logic Implication is relation or operation?

Jean Blaize Grize (in Logique Moderne Fascicule 1 p:28) has been distinguished between two type of implication : implication as relation among sentences and implication as operation, the former is qualified as preorder relation that is reflexive…
sostar
  • 63
2
votes
2 answers

OR vs XOR as fundamental logic gates

Why are the standard logical connectives for languages AND and OR (and IMPLIES)? I would agree with the assertion that they are more natural in some way, easier to think about than connectives like NAND or XNOR. What I question is the choice of OR…
user460377
2
votes
7 answers

Is (and) and (or) / (and) or (or) the same as and / or? Is there a case where it will not be?

Consider the two cases: I) $$(a \land b) \land (a \lor b)$$ II) $$(a \land b) \lor (a \lor b)$$ I am not familiar with the exact boolean algebra but using a truth table both come out equivalent to their inner $\land$ (I) and respectively $\lor$…
Christian
  • 301