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
8
votes
3 answers

Formal definition of equation and unknowns

I was just wondering about the formal definition of equation, I mean in terms of logic and the theory of sets. Suppose for example I wanted to define an equation on $\mathbb{R}$, of course it might be anything instead. I know every number is a set,…
Daniela Diaz
  • 3,988
8
votes
2 answers

$T \vdash Prov_T(\sigma)$ but $T \nvdash \sigma$

If we have a consistent and axiomatizable extension of PA, which we'll call $T$, I'm wondering if it's possible to have a sentence $\phi$ such that $T \vdash Prov_T(\phi)$ but $T \nvdash \phi$ where $Prov_T(x)$ expresses "$x$ is provable in…
Rex
  • 167
8
votes
3 answers

Deducing "Some are " from "All are"?

In classical symbolic logic, Can we conclude "Some are Italian" from "All are Italian"? All are Italian. Therefore, Some are Italian. Apparently, Modern logicians argue that it is invalid since we cannot drop "all" to from "All are Italian" to…
8
votes
2 answers

Logic: difference between "interpretation" and "structure"

I never quite got the difference between an "interpretation" and a "structure" in logic. To me, they always sound like the same thing: a function from elements of a language to a particular universe. The "Structure (mathematical logic)" page on…
8
votes
1 answer

What is the role of the proof system in a Henkin-proof of Completeness?

Completeness is a property of proof systems. Roughly, we say that a proof system is complete iff truth implies derivability. Yet, the proofs for FOL we usually find in logic textbooks, i.e. "Henkin-proofs", do not seem to make any reference to any…
StudentType
  • 1,478
8
votes
1 answer

Proving consistency by constructing models? How and why?

A theory T1 can be shown to be consistent by describing a model for it. But usually the model is also described in words, using terms from some other theory T2. So unless T2 is also consistent this method of constructing a model does not seem to…
Johannes
  • 239
8
votes
1 answer

A question about Gödel's 1931 Paper.

Is there a typographical error in the dover and God Created the Integers editions of Gödel's Incompleteness paper? Or is it correct? Based on eq. 9 in part 2, I believe that there should be a negation sign over xB{17Genr} in equation 15. I know this…
8
votes
2 answers

Why constants in logic?

I was thumbing through my bro's logic book and got caught far longer than I expected. I got to the point where what they call first-order logic is introduced, but I don't understand why they define constant symbols. It looks to me as if everything…
Alexis
  • 93
7
votes
4 answers

How do I memorize axioms of a Hilbert system?

I'm presented with a Hilbert system with just one inference rule (MP) and these axiom schemes: $$A \supset (B \supset A)$$ $$(A \supset (B \supset C)) \supset ((A \supset B) \supset (A \supset C))$$ $$A \supset (B \supset A \wedge B)$$ $$A \wedge B…
7
votes
2 answers

How to study first order logic, without the use of sets?

I am interested in learning first order logic. In particular, I would like to be comfortable enough with first order logic in order to fully tackle, say, the Axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel, as in Jech's Set Theory book (I have studied in the past other…
Arbre
7
votes
1 answer

How is this argument of Edward Nelson's not flawed?

Edward Nelson has started writing out the details of a proof of the inconsistency of a version of arithmetic. I'm an undergraduate trying to read through this slowly and carefully. I've run into a problem, however, with one of his arguments on page…
7
votes
3 answers

What does $\rightarrow$ mean in $p \rightarrow q$

I was looking at an exercise where it asked the following: $$\begin{array}{ccc} p&q&p\rightarrow q \\ T&T&T \\ &\ldots \end{array}$$ So, for the third column, I just put $T$ which was correct but I didn't understand what $\rightarrow$ meant. I have…
Jeel Shah
  • 9,306
7
votes
4 answers

$\forall$ is "distributiv"

Recently I stumbled upon an equivalence in analysis which is of the form $\forall x\varphi(x)\leftrightarrow\forall x\psi(x)$. This made me wonder if this is mabe equivalent to $\forall x(\varphi(x)\leftrightarrow\psi(x))$, i.e. if "$\forall$" is…
user10324
7
votes
2 answers

Can we find the average of three numbers in this way?

Let $f_n$ denote the "averaging" function $[0,1]^n \rightarrow [0,1]$ defined as follows. $$f_n(x_0,\cdots,x_{n-1}) = \frac{x_0 + \cdots + x_{n-1}}{n}$$ Then clearly, it is possible to express $f_4$ in terms of $f_2$. $$f_4(a,b,c,d) =…
goblin GONE
  • 67,744
7
votes
2 answers

Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic [fourth edition] - definition of logical consequence

In his exposition of FO-theory, Mendelson uses the Gen rule : $$A(x) \vdash \forall xA(x).$$ He also states the logical consequence relation : $$A ⊨ B$$ in terms of sequences : $A$ logically implies $B$ iff, in every interpretation $I$, every…