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

What's the precise meaning of '$\phi$ is essential in hypothesis of theorem'?

Say, " $\psi \Rightarrow \varphi$ " is a theorem and $\psi$ is essential in the hypothesis. I don't understand what's the meaning of essential. Here's what i guess; If $[\psi \Rightarrow \Phi] \bigwedge \neg [\Phi \Rightarrow \psi] \Rightarrow \neg…
Katlus
  • 6,593
2
votes
2 answers

Given p ⇒ q and m ⇒ p ∨ q, how would I prove m ⇒ q?

I've been stuck on this one problem that should be really simple. If somebody could help me prove m ⇒ q from the premises p ⇒ q and m ⇒ p ∨ q, preferably using the Fitch system, I would greatly appreciate it.
2
votes
1 answer

Substitution of logical equivalents

In classical propositional logic, if two formulas are logically equivalent then they are substitutable. That is, if we can prove $A \leftrightarrow B$, then we can substitute $B$ for $A$. Does this property hold of formulas involving quantifiers,…
user65526
  • 1,373
2
votes
1 answer

Using ∃ instead of ∀ in some statements

In Description Logics sometimes we use ∃ to express "all those concepts" such as in the example below : "the concept PlasticRoof is defined as the intersection of the concept Roof and the concept of all those things that are made of…
cuneyttyler
  • 123
  • 3
2
votes
2 answers

Axiom 3 of Hilbert System

I have seen that Axiom 3 of the Hilbert System is sometimes written as: 1: $( \neg A \rightarrow B) \rightarrow ( ( \neg A \rightarrow \neg B) \rightarrow A)$ and then sometimes it is: 2: $( \neg A \rightarrow \neg B) \rightarrow (B \rightarrow…
Kirin
  • 23
2
votes
2 answers

Logical Reasoning $(\neg p \vee \neg q) \wedge (r \vee q) \wedge (r \implies s) \implies \neg(p \wedge \neg s)$

There are no premises present. I need to prove ($\neg p \vee \neg q) \wedge (r \vee q) \wedge (r \implies s) \implies \neg(p \wedge \neg s)$. The catch is I'm only allowed to use primitive inference rules (so only introduction and elimination…
2
votes
1 answer

Notation for formal logical reasoning, premises & conclusions

Is this notation correct? (Learning basics of logical notation) ∃x∈X: P(x) ∀yP(y) -> O(y) ∴∃x∈X: O(x) "There exists an element x in a set X with property P." "For all elements with property P has also property O." "Therefore there exists an element…
Deloss
  • 159
2
votes
4 answers

Discrete math logic problem: a proposition.

I wonder how statement p is treated in (p AND true). Is it an open statement in this case? If it's open statement, how could we justify for the rest of the problem? (say, p AND false, why false, if p is an open statement?) I have some gut feeling…
Wong
  • 143
2
votes
4 answers

If some condition $P$ is necessary and sufficient for $Q$, why is it the case that $P$ if and only if $Q$?

If some condition $P$ is necessary and sufficient for $Q$, why is it the case that $P$ if and only if $Q$? I can understand if $P$ is sufficient for $Q$, then $P \implies Q$, but am not sure why $P$ being necessary for $Q$ implies $Q \implies P$? It…
user123276
  • 3,445
2
votes
2 answers

What is the logical reasoning that allows us to work backwards with implications? If $C \implies D$ and $E \implies C$, then $E \implies D$

I understand that we can work forwards using logical implications: If $A \implies B$ and $B \implies C $, then $A \implies C$. However, I am unsure of the reasoning that allows us to work backwards. For instance, If $C \implies D$ and $E \implies…
The Pointer
  • 4,182
2
votes
1 answer

Logic Trees: How do I figure out which names to apply for the universal quantifier first?

I'm trying to teach myself logic with Nicholas J.J. Smith's Logic: The Laws of Truth. Right now, I'm working through the chapter on General Predicate Logic, and am having a little bit of difficulty in working out trees that involve the universal…
2
votes
4 answers

if $P \implies Q$ why does $\bar{Q} \implies \bar{P}$

I recently started reading the book: A concise introduction to Pure Mathematics. I'm enjoying it so far, but unfortunately I've run into something I don't quite understand. Let P,Q be mathematical statements such that $$ P \implies Q $$ it is then…
2
votes
2 answers

Union & Intersection for Propositional Logic

How is it that the union of two sets of sentences (that, individually, logically entail a sentence) logically entails a sentence while the intersection of the two sets does not logically entail a sentence?
John B
  • 115
2
votes
4 answers

Does this definition of a set make sense: $S:=\{x: f(x)\geqslant |S|\}$?

Let the function $f(x)=x^2$ be defined on the set of positive integers $\{1,2,\ldots\}$. Let the set $S$ be defined as follows: $$S:=\bigl\{x: f(x)\geqslant |S|\bigr\}.$$ Is the set $S$ well defined? Why not? NB. I have a more complicated function…
Jarbou
  • 181
2
votes
2 answers

Logic: Proving tautological consequence

I'm having trouble proving this tautological consequence. I'd hope that you guys can maybe oversee my process and identify errors, because I went over this couple of times and I arrive at the same conclusion. The question goes like this: $A…