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

Math symbol for saying that $a>b \to x>y$ as well as $a=b \to x=y$

I want to state the following: $a>b \rightarrow x>y\\ a=b \rightarrow x=y\\ a
2
votes
0 answers

About Interpolation Theorems

I have three questions about logic, concretely about Craig's and Lyndon's Interpolation Theorems. In Boolos et al 'Computability and Logic' there is a very convincing proof of the former which first deals with the case where identity and functions…
Jsevillamol
  • 4,668
2
votes
3 answers

How is it that 'if A then B' can be equivalent to 'A only if B'?

I've seen this stated multiple times that the two are equal. However, I think it's actually logically impossible for the two terms to be the same, as either one of the statements seems to preclude the other. I know that's a bold statement, but…
user2901512
  • 2,080
2
votes
1 answer

There is a sentence which I find difficult in a set theory book!

I am reading a book called 'A book of Set Theory by Charles C.Pinter'. There is a sentence which I find confusing. It goes like this. " We will use letters P,Q,R,S to denote sentences(a sentence is a statement which is unambiguously true or false);…
Jin
  • 187
2
votes
2 answers

Negation of $\forall x \in U,$ $\exists r\gt0$ such that $\forall y \in \Bbb R, |y-x|\lt r\Rightarrow y \in U$

$\forall x \in U,$ $\exists r\gt0$ such that $\forall y \in \Bbb R, |y-x|\lt r\Rightarrow y \in U$ Negation: $\exists x \in U,$ $\forall r\gt0$ such that $\forall y \in \Bbb R, |y-x|\lt r\land y \notin U$ So it is that right?
abuchay
  • 602
2
votes
2 answers

Syntax (Prolog Style)- resolution

Suppose we have the following query: p(X) or q(Y) After negating it (to perform resolution), we get (in Prolog notation): :- p(X) :- q(Y) My question is that when performing resolution, is the above syntax the same as if I would write it as…
Melanie A
  • 133
2
votes
3 answers

Is "true" implied by $P∧(P⇒Q)$?

Consider the following expressions: $(i)$ false $(ii)$ Q $(iii)$ true $(iv)$ P∨Q $(v)$ ¬Q∨P The number of expressions given above that are logically implied by $P∧(P⇒Q)$ is ___________. My attempt: My doubt is regarding "true". Can we logically…
2
votes
2 answers

Can you represent other logical operations using only $\neg$ and $\Leftrightarrow$ (not and equivalence)?

I can check on WolframAlpha for how to represent some logical operations using others, but I don't see anything for $\Leftrightarrow$. Is it because it is impossible? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=a+xor+b
2
votes
1 answer

What is "determined form" of a predicate?

So I'm still reading The GUHA Method of Automatic Hypothesis Determination by P. Hajek, and there he uses a phrase: set of predicates with a determined form I have no idea what determined form is. Searching doesn't help. Anyone can help? I include…
2
votes
2 answers

Multiple possible interpretation for negation of a statement

For the statement below: One of my two cars was stolen. What is the negation? For me, it seems like there are two ways of interpreting this. First, if we interpret the statement as: $N = $ the number of my two cars which were stolen $P(N) = $…
b_pcakes
  • 1,501
2
votes
5 answers

Is my proof that $(p \wedge \neg p) \Rightarrow q$ correct?

I was asked by a professor a while ago to prove $(p \wedge \neg p)$ implies $q$. Whether through laziness or cleverness, I came up with the following proof: $p \wedge \neg p$ (by assumption). Assume by way of contradiction $\neg q$. $p \wedge \neg…
asmeurer
  • 9,774
2
votes
1 answer

Is the set of prime numbers arithmetically definable?

Recently, I was studying Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and I came across a theorem that was stated as: "All recursive functions and predicates are arithmetically definable". It used induction to prove the theorem. While, as we know recursive…
user72151
2
votes
1 answer

confused about disjunction of 2 terms

I'm watching a video on coursera (thinking mathematically course) and one of the questions from the disjunction section was: Let $A$ be the sentence "It will rain tomorrow". Let $B$ be the sentence "It will be dry tomorrow". Does $A \vee B$…
2
votes
1 answer

Theorems/entailment notation

When defining a predicate logic system with natural deduction, we can define the syntatic entailment with the operator $\vdash$. Generally, I see authors using the formula $\vdash \phi$ to say that $\phi$ is a theorem of the logical system. However…
felipegf
  • 197
  • 2
  • 9
2
votes
2 answers

To show $A\implies B$, is that sufficient to show for all $C$ s.t. $C\implies A$ then $C\implies B$

my question is in the title: to show $A\implies B$ is it enough to show for any $C$ such that $C\implies A$ we have $C\implies B$?
zell
  • 285