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

$\neg P \lor P $ is always true.

$\neg P \lor P $. Why this statements is always true even if $P$ is undecidable statements . I can't understand it for $P$ undecidable in the other case I do ! help please ?
1
vote
2 answers

Negation Outside of a parenthesis

If a negation is outside the parenthesis like this, $\sim (p\wedge \sim q)$, does it negate the whole thing. I mean like how if you have like $3(5+3)$ do you like you distributive property or am I over thinking this.
1
vote
0 answers

Types,realizing,conjunction

Define for types (finitely satisfiable maximal sets of formulas with parameters in some model $\mathcal M$) $p,q$ : $p \vDash q$ when every sequence realizing p realizes q. Why it suffices to test that for every FINITE $q' \subseteq q$ there is…
1
vote
4 answers

formal proof challenge

I am desperately trying to figure out the formal proof for this argument. $$\begin{array}{r} A\lor B\\ A\lor C\\ \hline A\lor (B \land C) \end{array}$$ I am trying to apply the backwards method here. I am trying to infer A, in order to use…
1
vote
1 answer

Does validity of contrapostive proofs require the Law of Excluded Middle?

I remember that during my first proofs class the hardest thing I had accepting were the logic we had to learn, and it seems I still have questions about. So I was thinking about why when the contrapositive is proved true then it implies that the…
Kamster
  • 1,970
  • 16
  • 18
1
vote
3 answers

Can we make illegitimate operations with $0$ legitimate by adding a few more axioms?

Just out of curiosity, can we make illegitimate operations with $0$, say, division by $0$ legitimate simply by imposing additional axioms? If so, then what consequences may follow? If the answer is negative, what are the differences between making…
Yes
  • 20,719
1
vote
1 answer

Confusing about logic gates

Says i have this logic : X = (A & B) | ~B Which can be shorten to : X = ~(~A & B) and then : X = A | ~B so : (A & B) | ~B = A | ~B About this one, i can prove it drawing a truth table, but i still can not shorten the logic. The guy gave…
f855a864
  • 301
1
vote
2 answers

Consending logic gates

Given this logic gate : A AND B OR B AND C AND (B OR C) it can be shorten as : B AND (A OR C) How do we do this ? I tried to aplly the De Morgan law but without success? Any help is greatly appreciated !
f855a864
  • 301
1
vote
2 answers

Prove or disprove validity: $(\forall x \exists y (P(x) \supset Q(y))) \supset(\exists y \forall x (P (x) \supset Q(y)))$

I have working on this formula $(\forall x \exists y (P(x) \supset Q(y))) \supset (\exists y \forall x (P (x) \supset Q(y)))$ to either prove or disprove it. First, I tempted to disprove it, but I changed my mind. I wrote down "for all x that there…
mert
  • 129
1
vote
0 answers

Is "There are no absolute truths" a paradox?

I was wondering if the statement: There are no absolute truths is a paradox or, rather, can be considered at face value. Also, this is just a naive guess, could this statement be related to Russel's Paradox where if: $\Omega$ = {set of absolute…
user12802
1
vote
2 answers

How to prove or disprove $ \forall x \in \mathbb R, \exists y \in \mathbb R $ |x| = xy

I think that the statement is true in general considering +1 or -1 for y. How can I prove it in proper notation. Similarly I need to prove $ \exists y \in \mathbb R, \forall x \in \mathbb R st, x^2 +2x - 5 \leq y$ I did it as follows, is it…
S.Dan
  • 1,115
1
vote
2 answers

2 formulas that are satisfied by the same finite structures

Let $A$ and $B$ be closed formulas in first order logic language. Assume that for any finite structure $M$: $$ M\models A \iff M\models B $$Prove or disprove: $A$ and $B$ are logically equivalent. I know that this claim is not true, but I cannot…
Shlomi
  • 811
1
vote
2 answers

Prove or disprove the syntactic consequence.

Consider $\forall x(Px\implies Qx)$. Which of the following are syntactic consequence of the former?: (i)$\forall xPx $, (ii) $\exists x Px$, (iii) $\exists x (Px\wedge Qx)$, (iv) $\neg\exists x (Px\wedge \neg Qx)$. I managed to solve the four…
Cure
  • 4,051
1
vote
3 answers

Derive: $(A \implies (B \wedge C)) \models (A\implies B)$

I need help! I am taking a Math & Truth Course and there are logic and paradox problems on an assignment I don't understand. Anyone willing to help me derive the following? $$ (A \implies (B \wedge C)) \models (A\implies B) $$ Note: In the…
1
vote
2 answers

A consistent set of formulas

In a logic system, a set $\Sigma$ of formulas is said to be inconsistent if $\Sigma \vdash \bot$, and consistent otherwise. Does it mean that $\Sigma$ is consistent if and only if $\Sigma \vdash \top$? Thanks.
Tim
  • 47,382