Closed-form expression in the context of Logarithm

In deductive logic, a consistent theory is one that does not lead to a logical contradiction. A theory ${\displaystyle T}$ is consistent if there is no formula ${\displaystyle \varphi }$ such that both ${\displaystyle \varphi }$ and its negation ${\displaystyle \lnot \varphi }$ are elements of the set of consequences of ${\displaystyle T}$. Let ${\displaystyle A}$ be a set of closed sentences (informally "axioms") and ${\displaystyle \langle A\rangle }$ the set of closed sentences provable from ${\displaystyle A}$ under some (specified, possibly implicitly) formal deductive system. The set of axioms ${\displaystyle A}$ is consistent when there is no formula ${\displaystyle \varphi }$ such that ${\displaystyle \varphi \in \langle A\rangle }$ and ${\displaystyle \lnot \varphi \in \langle A\rangle }$. A trivial theory (i.e., one which proves every sentence in the language of the theory) is clearly inconsistent. Conversely, in an explosive formal system (e.g., classical or intuitionistic propositional or first-order logics) every inconsistent theory is trivial. Consistency of a theory is a syntactic notion, whose semantic counterpart is satisfiability. A theory is satisfiable if it has a model, i.e., there exists an interpretation under which all axioms in the theory are true. This is what consistent meant in traditional Aristotelian logic, although in contemporary mathematical logic the term satisfiable is used instead.

In a sound formal system, every satisfiable theory is consistent, but the converse does not hold. If there exists a deductive system for which these semantic and syntactic definitions are equivalent for any theory formulated in a particular deductive logic, the logic is called complete. The completeness of the propositional calculus was proved by Paul Bernays in 1918 and Emil Post in 1921, while the completeness of (first order) predicate calculus was proved by Kurt Gödel in 1930, and consistency proofs for arithmetics restricted with respect to the induction axiom schema were proved by Ackermann (1924), von Neumann (1927) and Herbrand (1931). Stronger logics, such as second-order logic, are not complete.

In physics, specifically classical mechanics, the three-body problem is to take the initial positions and velocities (or momenta) of three point masses orbiting each other in space and then to calculate their subsequent trajectories using Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation.

Unlike the two-body problem, the three-body problem has no general closed-form solution, meaning there is no explicit formula for the positions of the bodies. When three bodies orbit each other, the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions, and the only way to predict the motions of the bodies is to estimate them using numerical methods.

Unlike most other elementary shapes, such as the circle and square, there is no closed-form expression for the perimeter of an ellipse. Throughout history, a large number of closed-form approximations and expressions in terms of integrals or series have been given for the perimeter of an ellipse.

In mathematics, a generating function is a representation of an infinite sequence of numbers as the coefficients of a formal power series. Generating functions are often expressed in closed form (rather than as a series), by some expression involving operations on the formal series.

There are various types of generating functions, including ordinary generating functions, exponential generating functions, Lambert series, Bell series, and Dirichlet series. Every sequence in principle has a generating function of each type (except that Lambert and Dirichlet series require indices to start at 1 rather than 0), but the ease with which they can be handled may differ considerably. The particular generating function, if any, that is most useful in a given context will depend upon the nature of the sequence and the details of the problem being addressed.

In mathematics, a recurrence relation is an equation according to which the ${\displaystyle n}$th term of a sequence of numbers is equal to some combination of the previous terms. Often, only ${\displaystyle k}$ previous terms of the sequence appear in the equation, for a parameter ${\displaystyle k}$ that is independent of ${\displaystyle n}$; this number ${\displaystyle k}$ is called the order of the relation. If the values of the first ${\displaystyle k}$ numbers in the sequence have been given, the rest of the sequence can be calculated by repeatedly applying the equation.

In linear recurrences, the nth term is equated to a linear function of the ${\displaystyle k}$ previous terms. A famous example is the recurrence for the Fibonacci numbers,$${\displaystyle F_{n}=F_{n-1}+F_{n-2}}$$where the order ${\displaystyle k}$ is two and the linear function merely adds the two previous terms. This example is a linear recurrence with constant coefficients, because the coefficients of the linear function (1 and 1) are constants that do not depend on ${\displaystyle n.}$ For these recurrences, one can express the general term of the sequence as a closed-form expression of ${\displaystyle n}$. As well, linear recurrences with polynomial coefficients depending on ${\displaystyle n}$ are also important, because many common elementary functions and special functions have a Taylor series whose coefficients satisfy such a recurrence relation (see holonomic function).

In elementary algebra, the quadratic formula is a closed-form expression describing the solutions of a quadratic equation. Other ways of solving quadratic equations, such as completing the square, yield the same solutions.

Given a general quadratic equation of the form ⁠${\displaystyle \textstyle ax^{2}+bx+c=0}$⁠, with ⁠${\displaystyle x}$⁠ representing an unknown, and coefficients ⁠${\displaystyle a}$⁠, ⁠${\displaystyle b}$⁠, and ⁠${\displaystyle c}$⁠ representing known real or complex numbers with ⁠${\displaystyle a\neq 0}$⁠, the values of ⁠${\displaystyle x}$⁠ satisfying the equation, called the roots or zeros, can be found using the quadratic formula,

In geometry and algebra, a real number ${\displaystyle r}$ is constructible if and only if, given a line segment of unit length, a line segment of length ${\displaystyle |r|}$ can be constructed with compass and straightedge in a finite number of steps. Equivalently, ${\displaystyle r}$ is constructible if and only if there is a closed-form expression for ${\displaystyle r}$ using only integers and the operations for addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and square roots.

The geometric definition of constructible numbers motivates a corresponding definition of constructible points, which can again be described either geometrically or algebraically. A point is constructible if it can be produced as one of the points of a compass and straightedge construction (an endpoint of a line segment or crossing point of two lines or circles), starting from a given unit length segment. Alternatively and equivalently, taking the two endpoints of the given segment to be the points (0, 0) and (1, 0) of a Cartesian coordinate system, a point is constructible if and only if its Cartesian coordinates are both constructible numbers. Constructible numbers and points have also been called ruler and compass numbers and ruler and compass points, to distinguish them from numbers and points that may be constructed using other processes.