It makes me wonder what should be studied first - whether the basics of axiomatic set theory or mathematical logic? Although I initially that logic should be studied first, set theory second, now something makes me think that it should be vice-versa. The reason for this shift is that - when studying logic - we use various concepts that are introduced in set theory - numbers (&mathematical induction), sequence (definition of proof*) etc. What do you think?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

*formal proof is usually defined as follows: "a formal proof in propositional logic is a finite sequence of statements ..."

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Set Theory vs. Logic

Loading...

Similar Threads - Theory Logic | Date |
---|---|

Where do I go to discuss scientific theories? | Mar 1, 2018 |

Why mathematicians do not solve mathematical theories? | Feb 27, 2018 |

Scientific law vs. theory, Newton vs. Einstein | Oct 11, 2017 |

Logic behind theories and perception. | Jul 20, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**