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
2 answers

The connective ! has truth table... Show that the connective is not adequate.

$$\begin{array}{cc|c} P & Q & P!Q \\ \hline T & T & F \\ T & F & T \\ F & T & F \\ F & F & F \end{array}$$ I think this should be proved using induction but I have no idea where to start.. Thanks
ZZS14
  • 819
1
vote
1 answer

First-Order Languages and Circular Reasoning

I'm reading a book on Mathematical Logic (on my own) and from the beginning there are terms such as "functions" and "relations", but the only definitions of these words that I know are in terms of sets, but the purpose of mathematical logic is…
Mone
  • 215
1
vote
3 answers

Question about the FT, FF cases in the conditional:

The conditional operator, $\phi \implies \psi$, is True for the values $TT, FT, FF$ and false for $TF$. I can easily understand why it's true for $TT$ and false for $TF$, but why is it for $FT$ and $FF$? As far as I can see, we can't come to any…
MT_
  • 19,603
  • 9
  • 40
  • 81
1
vote
1 answer

Constructive proof for: P => ((P => Q) => Q)

I'm trying to find a constructive proof for the proposition: P => ((P => Q) => Q) given P and Q to nullary proposition symbols but I can't find a proof without using the excluded middle rule. Anyone has an idea on how to build a constructive…
guest-yolo
1
vote
1 answer

Why can negation pass through multiple quantifiers? [Chartrand P52-53, Velleman P65]

I'm mindful of the Quantifier Negation Laws and Negating a statement that ... several quantifiers. $\neg \; \exists \; P(x) \equiv \forall \; x \; \neg \; P(x) $ $ \neg \; \forall \; x \; P(x) \equiv \exists \; \neg \; P(x) $ How and why can…
user53259
1
vote
3 answers

Do I have to use induction to prove a statement that holds for all natural numbers?

If I have a statement $P$ and I wanna prove that $P$ is true for all $n \in \Bbb N$, do I have to use induction or can I just take an arbitrary $k \in \Bbb N $ and prove that $P$ is true for $k$? (obviously I wouldn't use any induction hypothesis).…
Twnk
  • 2,436
1
vote
1 answer

Elementary Truth Functional Logic question

So I am currently attacking a question from the first chapter of my logic book. I know that the question is true, but I am having a hard time actually proving it. The question is as follows. If a argument is valid, then it cannot be made invalid by…
Valentino
  • 1,334
1
vote
2 answers

Logic "formal proofs"

I'm really having trouble with this question. I already wasted many hours trying to think of what to do. I have to get $E$ on the right side given the set of premises $1$, $2$, $3$. I can add in $F$ later when I have $E$, so can someone please help…
Gary Choi
  • 167
1
vote
1 answer

propositional logic homework problems

Having some trouble with a couple of problems in my metalogic homework. We are using an axiomatic system with the following axioms: $\vdash B\rightarrow(A\rightarrow B)$ $\vdash (\neg A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow((\neg A\rightarrow \neg B)\rightarrow…
1
vote
1 answer

Need help with solving logical equation

I'm learning mathematical logic now and do not understand how to solve boolean equations. For example, I have an equation like $$(\bar{z}\implies y)\iff(\bar{z}\lor x )=x\oplus y$$ I'm able to translate it to simple form like: $$[(\bar{z}\land…
akashihi
  • 113
1
vote
0 answers

Replacement of sentence symbols in a well-formed formula

Suppose $\theta$ is a tautology and $A,B$ are sentence symbols occurring in $\theta$ and $\psi$ is a well formed formula obtained by replacing $B$ with $A.$ Is $\psi$ is a tautology? My proof: We only need to consider any truth assignment $v$ such…
1
vote
3 answers

Constructing Logical Proofs -- Only one premise?

Alright, so I've been staring at this problem for two hours trying to figure out what exactly is wrong. Is there a typo? Am I missing something? Here is the problem: $A$ /∴ $B \rightarrow (\lnot A \rightarrow C)$ My professor said these were…
T. J.
  • 11
1
vote
1 answer

Hasse graph of a poset.

Let $S = \{a, b, c, d, e, f\}$. The graph of a poset $(S,\lesssim)$ looks like this: Except vertices of the graph in my textbook are represented by letters. The letters correspond to the numbers in the graph I linked to like this: a corresponds to…
1
vote
0 answers

Use equational proofs to solve the problem

Use equational proof to solve the problem. $ \vdash A \lor (B \rightarrow A) \equiv B \rightarrow A $ These are the axioms and theorems.
1
vote
1 answer

Use Hilbert style proofs to solve problem

Solve this problem by using Hilbert style proof: $ A,B \vdash A \equiv B $ my try : (1) A (hyp) (2) B (hyp) (3) $ A \land B $ (merge) (4) $ A \land B \equiv A \equiv B \equiv A \lor B $ (golden rule) (5) $ A \equiv B \equiv A \lor B $ (3,4 +…
1 2 3
99
100