Auto-Epistemic Logic Proposed by Moore (1985) Contemplates reflection on self knowledge (auto-epistemic) Permits to talk not just about the external world,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Computer Science CPSC 322 Lecture 25 Top Down Proof Procedure (Ch 5.2.2)
Advertisements

Techniques for Proving the Completeness of a Proof System Hongseok Yang Seoul National University Cristiano Calcagno Imperial College.
Possible World Semantics for Modal Logic
Argumentation Based on the material due to P. M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski et al.
Lecture 11: Datalog Tuesday, February 6, Outline Datalog syntax Examples Semantics: –Minimal model –Least fixpoint –They are equivalent Naive evaluation.
Rigorous Software Development CSCI-GA Instructor: Thomas Wies Spring 2012 Lecture 11.
Recursive Definitions and Structural Induction
Answer Set Programming Overview Dr. Rogelio Dávila Pérez Profesor-Investigador División de Posgrado Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara
Logic.
Well-founded Semantics with Disjunction João Alcântara, Carlos Damásio and Luís Moniz Pereira Centro de Inteligência Artificial.
Logic Concepts Lecture Module 11.
Computability and Complexity 9-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Logic Reminder (Cnt’d)
Formal Logic Proof Methods Direct Proof / Natural Deduction Conditional Proof (Implication Introduction) Reductio ad Absurdum Resolution Refutation.
1 Basic abstract interpretation theory. 2 The general idea §a semantics l any definition style, from a denotational definition to a detailed interpreter.
The idea of completion In LP one uses “if” but mean “iff” [Clark78] This doesn’t imply that -1 is not a natural number! With this program we mean: This.
Auto-Epistemic Logic Proposed by Moore (1985) Contemplates reflection on self knowledge (auto-epistemic) Allows for representing knowledge not just about.
Logic in Computer Science Transparency No Chapter 3 Propositional Logic 3.6. Propositional Resolution.
Winter 2004/5Pls – inductive – Catriel Beeri1 Inductive Definitions (our meta-language for specifications)  Examples  Syntax  Semantics  Proof Trees.
ASP vs. Prolog like programming ASP is adequate for: –NP-complete problems –situation where the whole program is relevant for the problem at hands èIf.
Chapter 3 Propositional Logic
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning José Júlio Alferes Luís Moniz Pereira.
ASP vs. Prolog like programming ASP is adequate for: –NP-complete problems –situation where the whole program is relevant for the problem at hands èIf.
Chapter 7 Reasoning about Knowledge by Neha Saxena Id: 13 CS 267.
Auto-Epistemic Logic Proposed by Moore (1985) Contemplates reflection on self knowledge (auto-epistemic) Allows for representing knowledge not just about.
Belief Revision Lecture 1: AGM April 1, 2004 Gregory Wheeler
Ofer Strichman, Technion Deciding Combined Theories.
© Patrick Blackburn, Johan Bos & Kristina Striegnitz Horn clauses A literal is an atomic formula or its negation A clause is a disjunction of literals.
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning University "Politehnica" of Bucharest Department of Computer Science Fall 2010 Adina Magda Florea
Propositional Logic Reasoning correctly computationally Chapter 7 or 8.
1 Knowledge Based Systems (CM0377) Lecture 12 (Last modified 2nd May 2002)
Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure Ming Fang 7/24/2009.
Proof Systems KB |- Q iff there is a sequence of wffs D1,..., Dn such that Dn is Q and for each Di in the sequence: a) either Di is in KB or b) Di can.
Quasigroups Defaults Foundations of AI. Given an N X N matrix, and given N colors, color the matrix in such a way that: -all cells are colored; - each.
CS 4100 Artificial Intelligence Prof. C. Hafner Class Notes Jan 19, 2012.
1 Knowledge Based Systems (CM0377) Lecture 4 (Last modified 5th February 2001)
Combining Answer Sets of Nonmonotonic Logic Programs Chiaki Sakama Wakayama University Katsumi Inoue National Institute of Informatics.
Web Science & Technologies University of Koblenz ▪ Landau, Germany Stable Models See Bry et al 2007.
Formal Models in AGI Research Pei Wang Temple University Philadelphia, USA.
Pattern-directed inference systems
Advanced Topics in Propositional Logic Chapter 17 Language, Proof and Logic.
Logical Agents Logic Propositional Logic Summary
Of 33 lecture 12: propositional logic – part I. of 33 propositions and connectives … two-valued logic – every sentence is either true or false some sentences.
Slide 1 Propositional Definite Clause Logic: Syntax, Semantics and Bottom-up Proofs Jim Little UBC CS 322 – CSP October 20, 2014.
Propositional Logic Dr. Rogelio Dávila Pérez Profesor-Investigador División de Posgrado Universidad Autónoma Guadalajara
Mathematics What is it? What is it about?. Terminology: Definition Axiom – a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences.
Propositional calculus
A Logic of Partially Satisfied Constraints Nic Wilson Cork Constraint Computation Centre Computer Science, UCC.
Reasoning about Knowledge 1 INF02511: Knowledge Engineering Reasoning about Knowledge (a very short introduction) Iyad Rahwan.
DL Overview Second Pass Ming Fang 06/19/2009. Outlines  Description Languages  Knowledge Representation in DL  Logical Inference in DL.
C. Varela1 Logic Programming (PLP 11) Predicate Calculus, Horn Clauses, Clocksin-Mellish Procedure Carlos Varela Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute November.
Computer Science CPSC 322 Lecture 22 Logical Consequences, Proof Procedures (Ch 5.2.2)
© Copyright 2008 STI INNSBRUCK Intelligent Systems Propositional Logic.
1 First order theories (Chapter 1, Sections 1.4 – 1.5) From the slides for the book “Decision procedures” by D.Kroening and O.Strichman.
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Propositional Logic Rather than jumping right into FOL, we begin with propositional logic A logic involves: §Language (with a syntax) §Semantics §Proof.
1 Finite Model Theory Lecture 16 L  1  Summary and 0/1 Laws.
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
CS 344 Artificial Intelligence By Prof: Pushpak Bhattacharya Class on 12/Feb/2007.
3.3 Mathematical Induction 1 Follow me for a walk through...
October 19th, 2007L. M. Pereira and A. M. Pinto1 Approved Models for Normal Logic Programs Luís Moniz Pereira and Alexandre Miguel Pinto Centre for Artificial.
Propositional Logic (a.k.a. Sentential Logic)
Theme № 14. Conclusion The plan: 1. Essence of conclusion.
Lecture 2 Propositional Logic
CS 416 Artificial Intelligence
Carlos Varela Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute November 10, 2017
PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC - SYNTAX-
Bottom Up: Soundness and Completeness
Bottom Up: Soundness and Completeness
Agenda Proofs (Konsep Pembuktian) Direct Proofs & Counterexamples
The language and formal semantics of computability logic
Presentation transcript:

Auto-Epistemic Logic Proposed by Moore (1985) Contemplates reflection on self knowledge (auto-epistemic) Permits to talk not just about the external world, but also about the knowledge I have of it

Syntax of AEL 1st Order Logic, plus the operator L (applied to formulas) L  signifies “I know  ” Examples: place → L place (or  L place →  place) young (X)   L  studies (X) → studies (X)

Meaning of AEL What do I know? –What I can derive (in all models) And what do I know not? –What I cannot derive But what can be derived depends on what I know –Add knowledge, then test

Semantics of AEL T* is an expansion of theory T iff T* = Th(T  { L  : T* |=  }  {  L  : T* |≠  }) Assuming the inference rule  / L  : T* = Cn AEL (T  {  L  : T* |≠  }) An AEL theory is always two-valued in L, that is, for every expansion:   | L   T*   L   T*

Knowledge vs. Belief Belief is a weaker concept –For every formula, I know it or know it not –There may be formulas I do not believe in, neither their contrary The Auto-Epistemic Logic of knowledge and belief (AELB), introduces also operator B  – I believe in 

AELB Example I rent a film if I believe I’m neither going to baseball nor football games B  baseball  B  football → rent_filme I don’t buy tickets if I don’t know I’m going to baseball nor know I’m going to football  L baseball   L football →  buy_tickets I’m going to football or baseball baseball  football I should not conclude that I rent a film, but do conclude I should not buy tickets

Axioms about beliefs Consistency Axiom  B  Normality Axiom B (F → G) → ( B F → B G) Necessitation rule F B F

Minimal models In what do I believe? –In that which belongs to all preferred models Which are the preferred models? –Those that, for one same set of beliefs, have a minimal number of true things A model M is minimal iff there does not exist a smaller model N, coincident with M on B  e L  atoms When  is true in all minimal models of T, we write T |= min 

AELB expansions T* is a static expansion of T iff T* = Cn AELB (T  {  L  : T* |≠  }  { B  : T* |= min  }) where Cn AELB denotes closure using the axioms of AELB plus necessitation for L

The special case of AEB Because of its properties, the case of theories without the knowledge operator is especially interesting Then, the definition of expansion becomes: T* =   (T*) where   (T*) = Cn AEB (T  { B  : T* |= min  }) and Cn AEB denotes closure using the axioms of AEB

Least expansion Theorem: Operator  is monotonic, i.e. T  T 1  T 2 →   (T 1 )    (T 2 ) Hence, there always exists a minimal expansion of T, obtainable by transfinite induction: –T 0 = Cn  (T) –T i+1 =   (T i ) –T  = U  T  (for limit ordinals  )

Consequences Every AEB theory has at least one expansion If a theory is affirmative (i.e. all clauses have at least a positive literal) then it has at least a consistent expansion There is a procedure to compute the semantics