Talk:Mathematical logic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mathematical logic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 2 years

Mathematics Top‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale.

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Help with term: distinction on Wikidata

I made an initial effort to provide a description and properties of the Wikidata item distinction (Q77227534), but I would appreciate someone with more expertise reviewing this. My initial description is based entirely on the Russian Wikipedia article: "a figure of speech through which the act of cognition is designated, reflecting the objective difference between real objects and elements of consciousness; In formal logic, one of the logical devices that can be used instead of defining". Daask (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

formal logic (Q1003009) could also use review. Daask (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

I have read this 10 times over and it still doesn't make sense to me. "Mathematical logic, also called formal logic, is a subfield of mathematics exploring the applications of formal logic to mathematics." This seems like an unnecessary circular definition. I haven't looked at the revision history so I apologise in advance if there is some insight to be found there. Psycho 79 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Part of the solution is to remove "also called formal logic", which in addition to making the sentence circular, is also wrong. Mathematical logic is the discipline comprising computability theory, proof theory, model theory, and set theory (and I would tend to argue for category theory and perhaps universal algebra, but these are less commonly listed). None of these fields are "called formal logic".

Exactly what these fields have in common is a little hard to put your finger on, but I'm not sure that "applying formal logic to mathematics" is really it. In lots of cases it's actually the reverse, applying mathematics to formal logic.

I think a complete rewrite of the sentence is indicated. We should try to be clear that the boundaries are fuzzy, and avoid trying to capture the essence of mathematical logic by some phrase that sounds more precise than the concept actually is. --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a look at the text over here, both as something to borrow from and perhaps to improve as well! Botterweg14 (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and rewritten it, using text from the other article. But I'm not at all attached to the new version, so please rewrite it again if you see room for improvement! Botterweg14 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hover over Mathematical Logic

When I hover over the Mathematical Logic link to this page from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms (First link in the article), It comes up with disgusting unrelated image attached to the article. Please fix it! I don't know how to sorry. It appears it was griefed or the image was misplaced. Bumv (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]