CACrown ArchivesHistory · sources · collections
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Predicate (logic)

concept of mathematical logic

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 31, 2026
Entity authorityQ1144319
Source-derived summary

In logic, a predicate is a non-logical symbol that represents a property or a relation, though, formally, does not need to represent anything at all. For instance, in the first-order formula

P

(

a

)

{\displaystyle P(a)}

, the symbol

P

{\displaystyle P}

is a predicate that applies to the individual constant

a

{\displaystyle a}

which evaluates to either true or false. Similarly, in the formula

R

(

a

,

b

)

{\displaystyle R(a,b)}

, the symbol

R

{\displaystyle R}

is a predicate that applies to the individual constants

a

{\displaystyle a}

and

b

{\displaystyle b}

. Predicates are considered a primitive notion of first-order and higher-order logic, and are therefore not defined in terms of other more basic concepts.

The term derives from the grammatical term "predicate", meaning a word or phrase that represents a property or relation.

In the semantics of logic, predicates are interpreted as relations. For instance, in a standard semantics for first-order logic, the formula

R

(

a

,

b

)

{\displaystyle R(a,b)}

would be true on an interpretation if the entities denoted by

a

{\displaystyle a}

and

b

{\displaystyle b}

stand in the relation denoted by

R

{\displaystyle R}

. Since predicates are non-logical symbols, they can denote different relations depending on the interpretation given to them. While first-order logic only includes predicates that apply to individual objects, other logics may allow predicates that apply to collections of objects defined by other predicates.

Strictly speaking, a predicate does not need to be given any interpretation, so long as its syntactic properties are well-defined.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Predicate (logic)” as concept of mathematical logic. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current 259-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Predicate, logic and concept can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as concept of mathematical logic. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 31, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1144319. The Library of Congress control number is sh85106250. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Predicate (logic)”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Predicate (logic) primary sources, Predicate (logic) archive and Predicate research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Predicate (logic)”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Predicate (logic)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.