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
5 answers

Proof by mathematical induction (conditional statements)

Suppose we need to prove a statement of the form $$\forall n\in\mathbb{N}(P(n)\to Q(n))$$ where $P(n)$ and $Q(n)$ are propositions using mathematical induction. Say for the base case $n=1$ it is true. Let $n=k>1$ and assume the statement is true…
Arian
  • 6,277
2
votes
1 answer

Use truth tables to show logical equivilance

Q: Show using truth tables that $\lnot(p \to q)$ and $(p \land q)$ are logically equivalent. So I thought that the negation of $(p \to q)$ was $(p \land \lnot q)$ so not sure if "logically equivalent" means their truths tables have to be identical…
2
votes
3 answers

Is “all swans are white” equivalent to “if it is not white, then it is not a swan”?

More formally, is "All As are Bs" equivalent to "if it is not a B, then it is not an A"?
kaspersky
  • 183
2
votes
3 answers

How Do I Figure Out Which Door to Choose From?

A computer game involves a knight on a quest for treasure. At the end of the journey, the knight approaches two doors. The left door has a sign saying "One of these doors leads to a ferocious dragon!" and the right door has a sign saying "Behind…
Frank
  • 5,984
2
votes
1 answer

What is the predicate of an n-ary propositional function?

I'm self-studying discrete mathematics using the Rosen textbook, and I'm trying to get some predicate logic terms straight. Using definitions from that textbook: The propositional function $P(x)$ is $x < 3$, and has as its subject the variable $x$,…
13ren
  • 123
2
votes
3 answers

An example showing that a Skolem normal form of $A$ can be not logically equivalent to $A.$

I am trying to learn a little about Mathematical Logic. Precisely now I am reading about Prenex Normal Forms from E. Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 2nd Edition. I would like to know whether I have correctly worked out exercise 2.80…
agt
  • 4,772
2
votes
4 answers

Are there rules of Logic dealing with the implies operator?

I'm just beginning a course in discrete mathematics and I'm learning a few of the basic laws to prove propositions. I understand how to use propositions that use the logical connectives, AND , OR, NOT. However I'm not sure how to prove a proposition…
lampShade
  • 1,053
2
votes
3 answers

Given an arbitrary truth table, is it always possible to construct a sequent that satisfies it?

If we have a sequent such as $$ \sim\left ( P\Rightarrow Q \right )\Rightarrow R$$it is always possible to find the truth table by slowly working through the columns. Doing this is standard bookwork for a first course in logic theory. However, I was…
Trogdor
  • 10,331
2
votes
3 answers

How to prove the tautology $ \neg \forall{x} \exists{y} (Py \wedge \neg Px) $?

I've been beating my head trying to prove the following tautology for some time: $$ \therefore \neg \forall{x} \exists{y} (Py \wedge \neg Px)$$ I think there's some tricky intermediate step that I'm missing. Any help would be appreciated.
arthur
  • 21
2
votes
1 answer

proof by resolution?

Consider the following sentence: $$[(F \implies P)\vee(D \implies P)] \implies [(F \wedge D) \implies P]$$ I am not too familiar with how to prove by resolution, from what I found online, I need to negate the conclusion and convert it to CNF, and I…
Bango
  • 21
2
votes
2 answers

What is $for$ and why isn't it an undefined connective in the language of predicate calculus?

Taking $\lnot$ and $\land$ as undefined notions, I have seen the following definitions $a\lor b\textit{ for }\lnot(\lnot a\land\lnot b)$ $a\implies b\textit{ for }\lnot(a\land\lnot b)$ $a{\iff}b\textit{ for }(a\implies b)\land(b\implies a)$ How is…
jjb
  • 31
2
votes
1 answer

How to construct formal proofs using the natural deduction

So I'm currently studying First Order Logic, and I'm really struggling with constructing formal proofs. Can you guys maybe explain to me how to solve this problem: Using the natural deduction rules, give a formal proof of: P → S from the…
2
votes
2 answers

Is it necessary to remove implications/bi-implications before converting to prenex normal form?

I read: I don't think the first step is necessary. Can anyone prove or disprove providing a counterexample that we reach non-equivalent predicate formulas? Kind of formulas I'm talking about are: $$\exists u((\exists x(A(x)\implies\forall y…
RE60K
  • 17,716
2
votes
1 answer

Is there a definition of ${\forall}$ that doesn't use the concept of propositional function?

The formal definition of ${\forall}$ is $\left({\forall}x\,{\in}S:P(x)\right)=true :\Leftrightarrow \{x:P(x)=true\}=S$. This uses $P(x)$, propositional function, whose definition uses the concept of a function. The definition of function uses the…
hxcb
  • 21
2
votes
2 answers

What is the P versus NP question asking?

Is the P versus NP question asking "P = NP" or "ZFC |- P = NP" (or "|- P = NP" for that matter)? Because if I say P = NP, then I will be asked to prove it. But if the goal is "ZFC |- P = NP" then the result will not be useful because of the set…
Zirui Wang
  • 1,417