UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 1
CSNB234ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Chapter 3Propositional Logic& Predicate Logic
Chapter 3Propositional Logic& Predicate Logic
Instructor: Alicia Tang Y. C.
(Chapter 2, pp. 45-76, Textbook)(Chapter 8, pp. 240-253, Ref. #3)Read online supplementary slides
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 2
Early Development of Symbolic Logic
• English mathematician DeMorgan criticised traditional logic because it was written in natural language.
• He thought that the formal meaning of a syllogistic statement was confused by the semantics of natural language.
• DeMorgan and Boole both contributed to the development of Propositional Logic (or Propositional Calculus).
• Using familiar algebraic symbols, they showed how certain algebraic rules were equally applicable to numbers, set and truth values of propositions.
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 3
Propositional Logic (I) Definition
– Propositional Logic Sentences• Every propositional symbol and truth symbol is
a sentence.– For example: true, P, Q, and R are four
sentences• The negation of a sentence is a sentence
– For example: P and false are sentences• The conjunction (and) of two sentences is a
sentence– For example: P P is a sentence
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 4
Propositional Logic (II)
Propositional Logic Sentences• The disjunction (or) of two sentence s is a
sentence– For example: P P is a sentence
• The implication of one sentence for another is a sentence
– For example: P Q is a sentence
• The equivalence of two sentences is a sentence
– for example: P Q = R is a sentence
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 5
Propositional Logic Semantics – An interpretation of a set of propositions is
the assignment of a truth value, either T of F, to each propositional symbol.
– The interpretation or truth value for sentences is determined by:
• The truth assignment of negation, P, where P is any propositional symbol, is F if the assignment to P is T and T if the assignment to P is F.
• The truth assignment of conjunction, , is T only when both conjuncts have truth value T; otherwise it is F.
Propositional Logic (III)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 6
Propositional Calculus Semantics – The truth assignment of disjunction, , is F
only when both conjuncts have truth value F; otherwise it is T.
– The truth assignment of implication, , is F only when the premise or symbol before the implication is T and the truth value of the consequent or symbol after the implication is F; otherwise it is always T.
– The truth assignment of equivalence, =, is T only when both expressions have the same truth assignment for all possible interpretations; otherwise it is F.
Propositional Logic (IV)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 7
Prove that ((PQR) = P Q R is a well-formed sentence in the propositional calculus.
Answer. Since:– P, Q and R are propositions and thus
sentences– P Q, the conjunction of two sentences, is
a sentence– (P Q) R, the implication of a sentence
for another, is a sentence
A Worked Example
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 8
P, Q and R are propositions and thus sentences
P and Q , the negation of two sentences, are sentences
P Q, the disjunction of two sentences, is a sentence
P Q R, the disjunction of two sentences, is a sentence
((P Q) R) = P Q R, the equivalence of two sentences, is a sentence
A Worked Example ..cont
We get back the
original sentence
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 9
Conclusion for the worked example
The above is our original sentence, which has been constructed
through a series of applications of legal rules and is therefore
well-formed.
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 10
Constant & Compound Sentences in Propositional Logic
Constants refer to atomic propositions.raining snowing eating hungry wet
Compound sentences capture relationships among propositions.
raining snowing wet
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 11
Compound Sentences Negations: ¬ raining The argument of a negation is called the
target . Conjunctions: (raining snowing ) The arguments of a conjunction are called
conjuncts . Disjunctions: (raining snowing ) The arguments of a disjunction are called
disjuncts .
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 12
Compound Sentences
Implications: (raining cloudy )– The left argument of an implication is the
antecedent .– The right argument of an implication is called the
consequent . Reductions: cloudy raining
– The left argument of a reduction is the consequent .
– The right argument of a reduction is called the antecedent .
Equivalences: raining cloudy
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 13
x y = y x Commutativity x y = y x
x (y z) = (x y) z Associativity x (y z) = (x y) z
x (y z) = (x y) (x z) Distributivity x (y z) = (x y) (x z)
Rules of Algebraic Manipulation
Some Laws for Logic Use
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 14
Semantics of Logical Operators
Negation:
Conjunction:
P P
T FF T
P Q P Q
T T TT F FF T FF F F
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 15
Semantics of Logical Operators
Disjunction:
P Q P Q
T T TT F TF T TF F F
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 16
More Semantics of Logical Operators
Implication:
Reverse Implication:
Equivalence:
P Q P Q
T T TT F FF T TF F T P Q Q P
T T TT F TF T FF F T
P Q Q P
T T TT F FF T FF F T
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 17
SatisfactionAn interpretation i satisfies a sentence φ (written |=i φ ) if and only if φ i =T .
A sentence is satisfiable if and only if there is some interpretation that satisfies it.
A sentence is valid if and only if every interpretation satisfies it.
A sentence is unsatisfiable if and only if there is no interpretation that satisfies it.
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 18
Truth Tables
A truth table is a table of all possible values for a set of propositional constants.
p q rT T TT T FT F TT F FF T TF T FF F TF F F
Each interpretation of a language is a row in the truth table for that language.
For a propositional language with n logical constants,there are 2 n interpretations.
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 19
Logical Equivalence
Two sentences are logically equivalent if and only if they logically entail each other.
Examples:¬(¬p) p¬(p q ) ¬p ¬q de Morgan’s law¬(p q ) ¬p ¬q de Morgan’s law(p q ) ¬p q
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 20
Problems
There can be many, many interpretations for a propositional language.
Remember that, for a language with n constants, there are 2n
possible interpretations. Sometimes there are many constants among premises that are irrelevant to the conclusion. ---- Much work wasted.Solution: use other kind of proof theory,
such as refutation proof (later part)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 21
The interpretation of any expression in propostional logic can be specified in a truth table. An example of a truth table is shown here:
Truth Tables
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 22
Example of validity: Problem to solve
Problem: (p q) (q r)?
Solution:p q r (p q) (q r) (p q ) (q r )T T T T T TT T F T F TT F T F T TT F F F T TF T T T T TF T F T F TF F T T T TF F F T T T
Allvalues
are“true”
It is a valid sentence!
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 23
Clausal Form
Propositional resolution works only on expressions in clausal form.
Fortunately, it is possible to convert any set of propositional calculus sentences into an equivalent set of sentences in clausal form.
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 24
Conversion to Clausal Form
Implications Out: P Q P QP Q P QP Q P Q) (P Q )
Negations In:P P (P Q) P Q(P Q ) P Q
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 25
Predicate Calculus(=Predicate Logic)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 26
Predicate Calculus (I)
In Proposition Logic, each atomic symbol (P, Q, etc) denotes a proposition of some complexity. There is no way to access the components of an individual assertion. Through inference rules we can manipulate predicate calculus expressions, accessing their individual components and inferring new sentences.
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 27
Predicate Calculus (II)
In Predicate Calculus, there are two ways variables may be used or quantified. In the first, the sentence is true for all constants that can be substituted for the variable under the intended interpretation. The variable is said to be universal quantified. Variables may also be quantified existentially. In this case the expression containing the variable is said to be true for at least one substitution from the domain of definition. Several relationships between negation and the universal and existential quantifiers are given below:
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 28
Predicate calculus sentences– Every atomic sentence is a sentence
• if s is a sentence, then so is its negation, s
• if s1 and s2 are sentences, then so is their conjunction, s1 s2
• if s1 and s2 are sentences, then so is their disjunction, s1 s2
• if s1 and s2 are sentences, then so is their implication, s1 s2
• if s1 and s2 are sentences, then so is their equivalence, s1 = s2
Predicate Calculus (III)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 29
If X is a variable and s is a sentence, then X s is a sentence
If X is a variable and s is a sentence, then X s is a sentence
Predicate Calculus (IV)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 30
English sentences represented in Predicate Calculus:
Some people like fried chicken. X (people(X) likes(X, fried_chicken)).
Nobody likes income taxes. X likes(X, income_taxes). X likes(X, income_taxes).
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 31
Rule:
All purple mushrooms are poisonous.X (purple(X) mushroom(X) poisonous(X))
Fact:
Tom loves Jerry.loves(tom, Jerry).
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 32
Quiz: Translate the following English Statements
into Predicate Expressions
All people that are not poor and are intelligent are happy.
Students who like to read books are not stupid.
Batman is knowledgeable and he is wealthy.
Tweety can fly if it is not fried and has wings.
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 33
Exercise #1
Everybody likes something.
There is something whom everybody likes.
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 34
Answers to Exercise #1
Everybody likes something. x.y. likes(x,y) There is something whom everybody
likes. y.x. likes(x,y)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 35
Exercise #2
X p(X) = X p(X)
Y q(Y) = Y q(Y)
For predicates p & q, and variables X and Y:
Write the following in English
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 36
Answers to Exercise #2
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 37
Quiz: Convert each of the following predicate logic to English sentences
X loves(X, superman) loves(superman, X)
food(laksa) X food(X) like(arul, X) X Y eat(X, Y) alive(X) food(Y)
X eat(haswan, X) eat(hasman, X)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 38
Stages involved in Proof Theory
Stage 1– convert all axioms into prenex form
• i.e. all quantifiers are at the front
Stage 2– purge existential quantifiers– this process is known as skolemization
Stage 3– drop universal quantifiers
• as they convey no information
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 39
An ExampleConsider the argument:
All men are mortal (given premise)Superman is a man (given premise)Superman is mortal (goal to test)
The argument gets formalised as:X man(X) mortal(X) man(Superman) mortal(Superman) (goal)
And has, as its conflict set in Clausal form: man(X) mortal(X) ---- (1) man(Superman) ---- (2) mortal(Superman) ---- (3)
Negation of goal
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 40
Apply resolution to derive at a contradiction:
We get:man(Superman) from (1) & (3)and,direct contradiction from (2) & (4)
The conclusion is that “the goal is true”(i.e. superman is mortal)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 41
Exercise #3 Convert each of the following into Predicate
Calculus equivalence:– Marcus was a man– Marcus was a Pompeian– All Pompeians were Romans– Caesar was a ruler– All Romans were either loyal to Caesar or hated
him– Everyone is loyal to someone– people only try to assassinate rulers they are not
loyal to– Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 42
Predicate logic for the 8 facts in Exercise #3
1. man(Marcus)2. pompeian(Marcus)3. X. pompeian(X) roman(X)4. ruler(Caesar)5. X. roman(X) loyalto(X, Caesar) hate(X, Caesar)6. X. Y. loyalto(X,Y)7. X. Y. person(X) ruler(Y) tryassassinate(X,Y)
loyalto(X,Y)8. tryassasinate(Marcus, Caesar)
9. X. man(X) person(X)
UNIVERSITI TENAGA NASIONAL 43
Answers to Exercise #3
loyato(Marcus, Caesar) (using 7, substitution, & apply M.P)
person(Marcus) tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar) ruler(Caesar)
using (4)
person(Marcus) tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar) using (8)
person(Marcus)
(using 9, substitution & apply M.P) man(Marcus) using (1)
nil
Top Related