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

Relationship between conditional logic and truth table values

In a conditional statement: if a then b is not necessarily equivalent to ~a then ~b. But in a truth table, when a is false and b is false, the statement is said to be "true". For example, in the conditional statement: "If you pass the exam, I will…
2
votes
2 answers

If $\Gamma \vdash \phi$, is $\Gamma$ always finite in Classical and Intuitionistic Logic?

I've been studying the Compactness Theorem in van Dalen's Logic and Structure. In the book, its proof seems to assume that every derivation has a finite number of premises. But this is not explicitly said in the text, as far as I know. Here is van…
StudentType
  • 1,478
2
votes
2 answers

How can an inequality be reflexive and anti symmetric

While going over my lecture notes for the preparation of exams, I stumbled upon this; Everything is making sense except the reflexive and anti symmetric relation of natural numbers. 1) By the definition of inequality , we can say that that $(x,…
Tom Lynd
  • 1,342
2
votes
1 answer

Breaking down expressions using boolean laws for these functions

Just want to make sure I'm understanding the laws correctly. Can I break down the following expressions like so? F1 = x’y’z’ + x’y’z + x’yz’ F1 = x’y’(z’ + z) + x’yz’ F1 = x’y’(1) + x’yz’ F1 = x’y’ + x’yz’ F1 = x’y’ + x’yz’ F2 = x’yz’ + x’yz +…
Imagin
  • 125
2
votes
1 answer

Is it true or false : p↔q does not imply p→¬q?

Problem is : Let p and q be propositions. Using only the Truth Table, decide whether p↔q does not imply p→¬q is True or False. I try to explain : Rule of inference "if the premises hold, then the conclusion…
2
votes
5 answers

Negating an equals sign?

If, when negating a statement, and part of that statement is $3y = x$, can you just say $3y$ does not $= x$ by putting a line through the $=$ sign or is there another way to negate the statement? The statement was "For all $x$ there exists a $y$,…
2
votes
2 answers

Is this a tautology: $\forall xP(x) \implies Q(x)$ if there's no $x$ such that $P(x)$?

Is this a tautology: $\forall xP(x) \implies Q(x)$ if there's no $x$ such that $P(x)$? I know that if there was an exists there instead of a for all, the antecedent would be false and thus the implication true. But this one confuses me. Could…
YoTengoUnLCD
  • 13,384
2
votes
1 answer

$X = \{x\ :\ P(x)\}$ is it true that $a\in X⟺P(a)$

$X = \{x\ :\ P(x)\}$ is it true that $a\in X⟺P(a)$ I think it is true that $a\in X ⟹ P(a)$ but I'm not sure whether the converse is correct.
2
votes
2 answers

Is the converse of a false conditional always true as in the Truth Table?

Accroding to the Truth Table, If $p$ is TRUE, and $q$ is FALSE, then $p\implies q$ is FALSE. And the converse, $q \implies p$, is TRUE. If the conditional statement is "If two angles are congruent, they are not equal." this is a FALSE…
2
votes
1 answer

Proof that using only logical form is valid?

I'm studying logic. One of the fundamental things that I find everywhere is the claim and I'm quoting wikipedia: "The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not…
shobhu
  • 195
2
votes
1 answer

Proving that if $x$ is not free in $A$, then $(\exists x)(A\to B)\leftrightarrow(A\to(\exists x)(B))$

Assuming $x$ does not occur free in $A$, prove that $$(\exists x (A \to B)) \leftrightarrow (A \to ( \exists x B))$$ using any of the following axioms; MP, HS, or the Deduction Theorem. 1) $A \to (B \to A)$ 2) $(A \to (B \to C)) \to ((A \to B) \to…
Mark13426
  • 171
2
votes
1 answer

Prove that $(\exists!x)(A(x))\iff(\exists x)(A(x)\wedge(\forall y)(A(x)\wedge A(y)\implies x=y)$

$$(\exists!x)(A(x))\iff(\exists x)(A(x)\wedge(\forall y)(A(x)\wedge A(y))\implies x=y)$$ This is extremely intuitive, there is only one $x$ that satisfies the property $A$ if and only if there exists an $x$ such that $A$ and for every $y$ that…
2
votes
1 answer

what is essentially universal or existential?

In Lambda-Prolog , I see essentially universal quantifier or essentially existential quantifier such terms, I am confused. It seems the universal quantification of a variable in program or goal is not same as essentially universal…
alim
  • 21
2
votes
2 answers

Why are some conditionals regarded false even if the antecedent is false?

In the Mendelson's logic book, there are 2 conditionals which Mendelson says they are regarded false even if their antecedent is false. One of them is the following: If this piece of iron is placed in water at time $t$, then the iron will…
2
votes
2 answers

find formula for $P\land Q$ using $\uparrow$

I am supposed to find a formula for $P \land Q$ using the logical connective $\uparrow$ $P \uparrow Q$ means that not both $P$ and $Q$ is true. I have already found that $P \lor Q \equiv (P\uparrow P)\uparrow (Q \uparrow Q)\quad$(1.) $\neg P \equiv…