Can you prove p → q |- ¬p ∨ q without using the law of the excluded middle or its equivalent? I'm going through a logic book (introductory) and I have an intuition that proving this isn't possible constructively, but I'd like a confirmation.
I'm looking for challenges, puzzles and "teach yourself" courses that involve maths and logic, probably related to computing. Ideally I'd like a curated source (mailing list or regularly updated website), but perhaps the best we can do is collect them here. Inside I will give examples of what I mean by "challenges, puzzles and courses". [more inside]
Do Godel's theorems refute all of science and logic? [more inside]
I have a learning disability (dyscalculia/mathematics disorder). Could I handle the formal language component of an undergrad Introduction to Logic class? [more inside]
What is the next step of this Kenken? [more inside]
I am looking for a math typesetting style guide. By this I don't mean the kind of stylesheet for journal submissions that says "Be sure to use the blah-blah-blah LaTeX package and the XYZ equation environment, and our army of editorial assistants will tie up the loose ends and knock off the rough edges." (Why not? Because my advisor is involved in starting a new journal, and suddenly my labmates and I are that army of editorial assistants.) [more inside]
Is there a mathematical, economic, logical or game-theory name/description for the following scenario? [more inside]
If a man’s wit be wandering, let him post a question about mathematics and reasoning to MetaFilter. [more inside]
I've read that Gödel's incompleteness theorem shows that there are definite limits to what logic, mathematics and by extension computers can do. This seems to be unknown among humanists such as myself. What are the things logic cannot do? Earlier AskMe questions about Gödel here and here (this answer is especially good).
Can someone explain the Doomsday Argument in a way that a math-challenged person like me can understand? [more inside]