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
1
vote
1 answer

Discrete Math Formula Equivalence Proof

How can I prove that the following two statements are equivalent, using Formula Equivalence laws? f(x) and (g(x) and h(x)) (f(x) and g(x)) and (f(x) and h(x)) I know that by associativity, f(x) and (g(x) and h(x)) is equal to (f(x) and g(x)) and…
Charles
  • 315
1
vote
3 answers

How can I prove that (B and (A implies B)) is equivalent to B?

I was given a couple of proofs to work out like the one stated in my question. While I have successfully managed to prove all the others, this one has me stumped: Show that (B and (A implies B)) is equivalent to B My first steps were to transform…
1
vote
1 answer

How to understand this proof in Bourbaki's formalism?

Trying to understand the proof (or rather, verification) of the following criterion of formation in Bourbaki, Chapter 1 (p. 22 here): CF7. Let $A$ be a relation (term), and let $x$ and $y$ be letters. Then $(y|x)A$ is a relation (term). Let $A_1,…
itsqualtime
  • 119
  • 7
1
vote
2 answers

Can this be further simplified?

I had to analyse the logical form of some statements, one of them is this: $P \cup (Q \cap R) \subset A \cup(B \setminus C)$ which I analysed with these expressions: $\exists x (x \in ( P \lor (Q \land R) \rightarrow x \in (A \lor (B \setminus C)))$…
user168764
1
vote
1 answer

Help with the negation of a complicated(and poorly written, in my opinion) definition of almost periodic function

I am being asked to write the negation of the following statement: For every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is $T > 0$ such that for every $x \in \mathbb R$ there exists $y$ such that $x < y < x + T$ and such that for all $z \in \mathbb R,$ $|f(z + y) −…
mck619
  • 15
  • 3
1
vote
1 answer

Find $\{x\in \mathbb R\colon\neg(3x>21\implies x\leq 5) \}$

For which $x\in\mathbb{R}$ does $\neg(3x>21\implies x\leq 5)$ hold? I believe it holds for all $x>7$, but I don't know how to formally write this down. Can someone help me out? Is there a systematic way of doing this?
james
  • 11
1
vote
0 answers

Predicate logic. Check if I have done this correctly

I need someone to verify if I have translated a sentence into predicate logic correctly. Given predicates: Empty(x) : the list x is empty Sorted(x) : the list x is sorted in ascending (not decreasing) order x < y : number x is smaller than number…
karl88
  • 13
1
vote
2 answers

Are there multiple contrapositives?

Are there "multiple contrapositives"? Normally a contrapositive from P implies Q changes to not Q implies not P. Secondly, can a contrapositive be in the from of P in the antecedent and Q be the consequent? I'm not going to post the question because…
User
  • 405
1
vote
1 answer

Am I on the right track simplifying this logical expression?

I am just learning logic and sets, and I am not completely familiar with them yet, that's why I am asking you here, if at least I am on the right track. Is this first of all correctly simplified? $P \land (((P \land \neg Q) \rightarrow \neg P)…
user168764
1
vote
1 answer

a function to specify arity-- what do these sentences mean??

I have encountered a function $\pi$ mapping the set of function and predicate symbols to the natural numbers so that for each $k\ge1$, each of the sets {$i \in N | \pi (F_i)=k$}, {$i \in N|\pi(P_i)=k$} is infinite. Then it says that the purpose of…
MerryMC
  • 97
1
vote
1 answer

Give a useful written negation of the statement

I am struggling a bit with giving the useful negation and the written statement: For (b) below: (i) Assign a universal set to each variable, label each component statement with a symbol; (ii) write a useful negation of the statement symbolically;…
Carlos
  • 63
1
vote
3 answers

Problem understanding why $P \implies (Q \implies P) \equiv T$

I've been through the truth table and I can see how it works but I can't exactly understand why. The proof presented in the book (Logical Reasoning: A First Course by Nederpelt and Kamareddine) says that the derivation is as follows: $$1. \{Assume:…
1
vote
1 answer

Analyse the logical form of the following statements

I am not completely sure about the request of this question: Analyze the logical form of the following statements using variables C and PASCAL are programming languages, either C is better than PASCAL or PASCAL is better than C. Should we simply…
user168764
1
vote
3 answers

When can $p\to q$ be true while $p \wedge q$ be false?

I know that the truth tables for both $p \to q$ and $p \wedge q$ are both different, but I cannot however figure out a statement that would make one true but the other false. If any would could help with this I would be very appreciative!
user179030
1
vote
1 answer

Can this logic expression be further simplified?

I am learning logic at faculty and of course it causes a little bit of confusion sometimes. $P \lor \neg Q \lor (P \land \neg R)$ Am I forgetting a law (probably yes)?
user168764