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

Ackermann's valuation of well formed formulas

I am self-studying logic, and am exploring the discrepancy that several texts (philosophical and mathematical) assert that quantifiers can't be assessed "semantically" (via a truth table), and a text by Ackermann that asserts that they can. In…
Lugh
  • 159
2
votes
1 answer

Logic Shorthand Notation for Universal and Existential Quantifiers

I have seen that $\forall x\in X [P(x)]$ is shorthand notation for $\forall x [x\in X\rightarrow P(x)]$. Is this formally correct? If so, could $\forall x\in X [P]$ be represented in this notation where $x$ is free in $P$? Also, I was wondering if…
W. G.
  • 1,766
2
votes
2 answers

Logical Operators priorities

If there exists any priorities between logical operators. I do not mean in any specific programming language, but in the mathematics. For example, How can we interpret A<=>B<=>C ? Thanks
remo
  • 441
2
votes
1 answer

logic transformation

This is more related to engineering but I am having difficulty to draw the connection. I have the following predicate a$\to$(b$\to$c) and I would like to find P$_{(a=T)}$ $\oplus$ P$_{(a=F)}$ I am doing the…
2
votes
1 answer

First order sentence modeled by an infinite graph

Suppose we have a sentence $\chi$ in the language $L = \left\{E\right\}$ of graphs, where $E$ is a binary relation symbol (intended to be there is an edge between $x$ and $y$). And let the graph axioms be so that a model is a symmetric graph with no…
Deven Ware
  • 7,076
2
votes
1 answer

Interpretation of implication as universal quantification in a natural language

Suppose we have the following: $\forall x \in X, P$. Considering $x$ does not occur on the right hand side, we can also reformulate to: $X \rightarrow P$. Let us now assume that $X$ means "it's raining" and $P$ "it's cold". We can read the second…
AntlerM
  • 23
2
votes
3 answers

Problems with using validity symbol ⊨ "vacuously", as in "X ⊨" and "⊨ A"

Something has been bothering me for a while now. Sorry if the length doesn't seem to warrant the subject matter but it's been driving me nuts. In Greg Restall's Logic An Introduction, p. 56 to be precise, some claims are made about ways to use the ⊨…
2
votes
0 answers

Causation in Mathematics

I was a student College of Social Science before, but now moved to Mathematics major. What is the most peculiar point of Mathematics compared social science - especially my ex-major International Relations Studies, there's no causational thinking. I…
snapper
  • 589
2
votes
1 answer

Is it elementary substructure

$$\langle P(N), \subseteq\rangle \prec \langle P(R), \subseteq\rangle $$ Is it an elementary substructure? A substructure $N$ of structure $M$ is called an elementary substructure of $M$, if for every formula $\varphi$, and for every…
2
votes
1 answer

Is my work on analyzing the logical forms correct?

Let $A$= Alice is in the room and $B$ = Bob is in the room a. Alice and Bob are not both in the room b. Alice and Bob are both not in the room c.Either Alice or Bob is not in the room d.Neither Alice nor Bob is in the room My attempt : a. $\neg$ (A…
J. Deff
  • 1,588
2
votes
1 answer

Representing a logic puzzle with mathematical symbols

Consider the following logic puzzle, which is one of many created by Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland. No birds, except ostriches, are 9 feet high. There are no birds in this aviary that belong to anyone but me. No ostrich lives on…
2
votes
0 answers

(Big Question) Logic in Mathematics

Prior to body, willing to note that this question would not be proper because of too vagueness of it. Today I had met a person and been questioned below: 1) What is logic in mathematics? 2) Is it natural? never be dependent on "Human" ? 3) How does…
Beverlie
  • 2,645
2
votes
3 answers

The law of non-contradiction in Intuitionistic/Constructive logic

I understand the arguments for why the law of non-contradiction and double negation elimination aren't equivalent in intuitionistic logic, and why the former is valid while the latter is not. From what I understand, it seems like the distinction…
2
votes
1 answer

Examples of inclusive OR in everyday English

I was talking with my friend about logical connectives and he noticed that OR in informal speech is basically used only as exclusive and in other cases we add "or both" to it. So, it's the reverse of what we do in formal logic.(we add "and not both"…
famesyasd
  • 475
2
votes
0 answers

Basic Derivation using "7 rules"

I'm just checking my work to make sure I'm going through this in a sane fashion: $P\wedge Q, (P\wedge Q) \rightarrow (R\wedge S), (S\vee U) \rightarrow W \vdash W$ \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}\hline\ Scope &Step & Derivation&Rule\\ \hline1&(1)&P\wedge…