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
4 answers

Why is "$P \Rightarrow Q$" equivalent to "$\neg Q \Rightarrow \neg P$"?

Why is "$P \Rightarrow Q$" equivalent to "$\neg Q \Rightarrow \neg P$"? I am trying to understand why this does always apply, in terms of pure logic. Can you please explain it to me?
muffel
  • 2,879
1
vote
2 answers

Predicate calculus is not scapegoat theory ?!

A theory $T$ is a scapegoat theory if for every formula $A$ with only one free variable there exist a closed term s such that $T$ proves: $(\exists x(\neg A(x)))\Rightarrow \neg A(s)$ Why is any predicate calculus not a scapegoat theory? Please…
user87128
1
vote
3 answers

$\neg(A\Rightarrow B) \iff A\land \neg B$

When considering the question: Rewrite the following using only the symbols $A, B, \lor, \land, \neg$ : $$\neg(A\Rightarrow B)$$ I do not understand how to interpret this and what method to use to show the statement in a different form. If A and…
ahorn
  • 2,236
1
vote
3 answers

A problem in Logic

If A,B and C are statements such that C is true only if exactly one of A and B is true.If C is false then which of the following statement is true? $1$.If A is false then B is false. $2$.If A is true then B is false. $3$.Both A and B are…
Nannes
  • 1,141
1
vote
1 answer

Interchange quantifiers using the generalization theorem

On p. 111 (section 2.4) of Enderton's A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, immediately after the proof of the Generalization Theorem the following example is given $$\forall x \forall y \alpha \vdash \forall y \forall x \alpha$$ without any…
1
vote
1 answer

Writing a denial of proposition?

How would I write a denial of the following proposition. Neither $z
Fernando Martinez
  • 6,698
  • 19
  • 74
  • 108
1
vote
4 answers

How to formulate these statements

I have a few logic statements and am unsure how to formulate them A student is excellent if he can solve all the logic questions No student can solve all the logic questions there is a logic problem no student can solve No student is excellent I…
Lena Bru
  • 173
1
vote
2 answers

Provide truth table

I'm a student and I'm struggling to understand the basics of discrete maths. If such a noob question wont offend you, please help me understand the equation and how to prepare a truth table for this? $$p \rightarrow (\neg q \lor \neg r) \land \neg p…
Mat J
  • 113
1
vote
1 answer

How to interpret this

$ \models \phi \to \forall x.\phi$ where $\phi$ is WFF and x not free in $\phi$ Does that render that $ \phi \to \forall x.\phi$ is true in any cases?
jason
  • 13
1
vote
0 answers

Working through a step in a Completeness Theorem proof

I'm working through a proof of the completeness theorem for first order predicate calculus that was given in lectures and I'm stuck on proving a step that wasn't elaborated in class. Suppose $\phi$ is a formula in first-order predicate calculus and…
Mathmo
  • 4,883
1
vote
1 answer

Logic (simple?) interpretation problem

I have the following: p(X) → NOT p(X) The exercise requires to find an interpretation that makes the expression true and one that makes the expression false. So my reasoning was this, obviously if the rhs is true the lhs will be false and viceversa,…
1
vote
4 answers

Truth functions and truth table

I am trouble with the following question: "The connective “unless” can be ambiguous, and this exercise will pinpoint the ambiguity. We awake at dawn, and we are told We will have a picnic today unless it is raining at 10 A.M. Let $P$ be "We will…
Mathman
  • 706
1
vote
3 answers

Propositional Calculus

In a effort to become a better mathematician. I am self-studying Logic using the textbooks "Introduction to mathematical structures and Proofs" by Larry J Gerstein and "A tour though mathematical Logic" by Robert S Wolf. There are two …
Mathman
  • 706
1
vote
2 answers

Confusion - exercise - satisfiable or valid

I've the following exercise: Determine if the following formula is satisfiable or valid: $P(x_{0}) \rightarrow \forall x_{1}P(x_{1})$ I've no idea what $P$ means, no information is given and my first thought is that if we define $P(x_{0}) := \…
1
vote
1 answer

Propositional logic, Compactness theorem

Is the following statement correct? Let $\Sigma$ be an infinite set of propositions such that for every partition of $\Sigma$ into two subsets: $$\Sigma=\Sigma_{1}\cup\Sigma_{2}$$ At least one of the parts $\Sigma_1,\ \Sigma_2$ has a model. Then…
dave
  • 705
  • 4
  • 16