Discussion #16 1/12 Discussion #16 Validity & Equivalences.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Propositional Equivalences
Advertisements

Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs 1.1 Propositional Logic 1.2 Propositional Equivalences 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers 1.4 Nested Quantifiers.
© by Kenneth H. Rosen, Discrete Mathematics & its Applications, Sixth Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, 2007 Chapter 1: (Part 2): The Foundations: Logic and Proofs.
L41 Lecture 2: Predicates and Quantifiers.. L42 Agenda Predicates and Quantifiers –Existential Quantifier  –Universal Quantifier 
08 March 2009Instructor: Tasneem Darwish1 University of Palestine Faculty of Applied Engineering and Urban Planning Software Engineering Department Introduction.
CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
Discussion #17 1/15 Discussion #17 Derivations. Discussion #17 2/15 Topics Derivations  proofs in predicate calculus Inference Rules with Quantifiers.
1 Section 1.2 Propositional Equivalences. 2 Equivalent Propositions Have the same truth table Can be used interchangeably For example, exclusive or and.
First Order Logic (chapter 2 of the book) Lecture 3: Sep 14.
Proof by Deduction. Deductions and Formal Proofs A deduction is a sequence of logic statements, each of which is known or assumed to be true A formal.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 01/20/11 Ming-Hsuan Yang UC Merced 1.
EE1J2 - Slide 1 EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 11 Introduction to Predicate Logic Limitations of Propositional Logic Predicates, quantifiers and propositions.
Section 1.3: Predicates and Quantifiers
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 6 Predicate Logic, Logical Inference Spring
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3 CSci 2011.
Logical Equivalence & Predicate Logic
Mathematical Structures A collection of objects with operations defined on them and the accompanying properties form a mathematical structure or system.
1st-order Predicate Logic (FOL)
Review I Rosen , 3.1 Know your definitions!
Conjunctive normal form: any formula of the predicate calculus can be transformed into a conjunctive normal form. Def. A formula is said to be in conjunctive.
Chap. 2 Fundamentals of Logic. Proposition Proposition (or statement): an declarative sentence that is either true or false, but not both. e.g. –Margret.
Logic CL4 Episode 16 0 The language of CL4 The rules of CL4 CL4 as a conservative extension of classical logic The soundness and completeness of CL4 The.
First Order Predicate Logic
The Logic of Quantifiers Chapter 10 Language, Proof and Logic.
2.3Logical Implication: Rules of Inference From the notion of a valid argument, we begin a formal study of what we shall mean by an argument and when such.
First Order Logic Lecture 2: Sep 9. This Lecture Last time we talked about propositional logic, a logic on simple statements. This time we will talk about.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [INTELLIGENT AGENTS PARADIGM] Professor Janis Grundspenkis Riga Technical University Faculty of Computer Science and Information.
Fundamentals of Logic 1. What is a valid argument or proof? 2. Study system of logic 3. In proving theorems or solving problems, creativity and insight.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 7 Logical Inference Autumn 2012 CSE
Hazırlayan DISCRETE COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURES Propositional Logic PROF. DR. YUSUF OYSAL.
Scope, free variable, closed wff §In  X(A) or  X(A), where A is a wff : X is called the variable quantified over; A is said to be (within) the scope.
Propositional Logic. Propositions Any statement that is either True (T) or False (F) is a proposition Propositional variables: a variable that can assume.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements. Predicate Calculus Instructor: Hayk Melikya 2.3.
Section 1.2: Propositional Equivalences In the process of reasoning, we often replace a known statement with an equivalent statement that more closely.
Extra slides for Chapter 3: Propositional Calculus & Normal Forms Based on Prof. Lila Kari’s slides For CS2209A, 2009 By Dr. Charles Ling;
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Proofs in Predicate Logic , , ~, ,  Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section: The theorems.
Chapter 2 Logic 2.1 Statements 2.2 The Negation of a Statement 2.3 The Disjunction and Conjunction of Statements 2.4 The Implication 2.5 More on Implications.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Predicate Logic Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section: To introduce predicate logic (or.
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
CSS342: Quantifiers1 Professor: Munehiro Fukuda. CSS342: Quantifiers2 Review of Propositions Proposition: a statement that is either true or false, but.
Chapter 2 Symbolic Logic. Section 2-1 Truth, Equivalence and Implication.
CS 285- Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4. Section 1.3 Predicate logic Predicate logic is an extension of propositional logic that permits concisely reasoning.
Proofs in Predicate Calculus
Method of proofs.  Consider the statements: “Humans have two eyes”  It implies the “universal quantification”  If a is a Human then a has two eyes.
Chapter 2 Fundamentals of Logic 1. What is a valid argument or proof?
Symbolic Logic The Following slide were written using materials from the Book: The Following slide were written using materials from the Book: Discrete.
Week 4 - Friday.  What did we talk about last time?  Floor and ceiling  Proof by contradiction.
PREDICATES AND QUANTIFIERS COSC-1321 Discrete Structures 1.
Mathematics for Comter I Lecture 3: Logic (2) Propositional Equivalences Predicates and Quantifiers.
Introduction to Predicates and Quantified Statements I Lecture 9 Section 2.1 Wed, Jan 31, 2007.
Law of logic Lecture 4.
Propositional Logic.
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Advanced Algorithms Analysis and Design
CSE15 Discrete Mathematics 01/23/17
ece 627 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
Discussion #10 Logical Equivalences
Proposition & Predicates
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Propositional Equivalences
Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 1
1st-order Predicate Logic (FOL)
First Order Logic Rosen Lecture 3: Sept 11, 12.
Negations of quantifiers
Discrete Mathematics CMP-200 Propositional Equivalences, Predicates & Quantifiers, Negating Quantified Statements Abdul Hameed
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Logic Logic is a discipline that studies the principles and methods used to construct valid arguments. An argument is a related sequence of statements.
1st-order Predicate Logic (FOL)
Presentation transcript:

Discussion #16 1/12 Discussion #16 Validity & Equivalences

Discussion #16 2/12 Topics Validity –Tautologies with Interpretations –Contradictions with Interpretations Logical Equivalences Involving Quantifiers Rectification

Discussion #16 3/12 Validity An expression that is true for all interpretations is said to be valid. (A valid expression is also call a tautology.) An expression that is true for no interpretation is said to be contradictory. (A contradictory expression is also called a contradiction.) If A is valid,  A is contradictory. (a tautology)(a contradiction) Examples: –P(x, y)  P(x, y)   P(x, y)  P(x, y) is valid –P(x, y)   P(x, y) is contradictory

Discussion #16 4/12 Laws are Valid All laws are valid. –de Morgan’s:  (P(x)  Q(y))   P(x)   Q(y) –Identity: P(x)  T  P(x) When we replace  by , the resulting expression is true for all interpretations. –de Morgan’s:  (P(x)  Q(y))   P(x)   Q(y) –Identity: P(x)  T  P(x)

Discussion #16 5/12 z z Doesn’t work Equivalence with Variants An expression with the variable names changed is called a variant. Proper variants are equivalent, i.e. it doesn’t matter what variable name is used. Example:  xA   yS x y A But, we must be careful 1.We must substitute only for the x’s bound by  x. 2.Further, variables must not “clash.” Strong rule: y must not be in A; weaker rule: no y in the scope of  x can be free in the scope of  x, and no x bound by  x may be in the scope of a bound y.  x(  y(P(y)  Q(x,z))   xP(x)) w w Works  x(  yP(y)  Q(x,z))   xP(x) y y Works y y Doesn’t work

Discussion #16 6/12 Equivalences Involving Quantifiers 1.  xA  Aif x not free in A 1d.  xA  Aif x not free in A  x(  xP(x, z))   xP(x, z) 1) x is already bound  xP(y, z)  P(y, z) 2) There are no x’s  xP(x, z)  P(x, z) 3) x is free in P(x, z) 2.  xA   yS x y A if x does not “clash” with y in A 2d.  xA   yS x y Aif x does not “clash” with y in A

Discussion #16 7/12 Equivalences Involving Quantifiers (continued…) 3.  xA  S x t A   xAfor any term t 3d.  xA  S x t A   xAfor any term t 1.When  xA is false, so is S x t A   xA. 2.When  xA is true for all substitutions, S x t A is true, and hence S x t A   xA is true. 3.We are just “anding in” something that’s already there. 4.Dual argument for 3d (“oring in” something that’s already there).

Discussion #16 8/12 Equivalences Involving Quantifiers (continued…) Distributive laws: 4.  x(A  B)  A   xBif x not free in A 4d.  x(A  B)  A   xBif x not free in A P   xQ(x)  P  (Q(x 1 )  Q(x 2 )  …)  (P  Q(x 1 ))  (P  Q(x 2 ))  …   x(P  Q(x)) Associative laws: 5.  x(A  B)   xA   xB 5d.  x(A  B)   xA   xB

Discussion #16 9/12 Equivalences Involving Quantifiers (continued…) Commutative laws: 6.  x  yA   y  xA 6d.  x  yA   y  xA deMorgan’s laws: 7.  xA   x  A 7d.  xA   x  A  xP(x)   (P(x 1 )  P(x 2 )  …)   P(x 1 )   P(x 2 )  …   x  P(x)

Discussion #16 10/12 Equivalence – Example Show:  xP(x)  Q   x(P(x)  Q)  xP(x)  Q   xP(x)  Q implication law   x  P(x)  Q de Morgan’s law   x(  P(x)  Q) distributive law   x(P(x)  Q) implication law

Discussion #16 11/12 Rectification Standardizing variables apart, also called rectification  we can rename variables to make distinct variables have distinct names. (  xP(x, y)   xQ(y, x))   yR(y, x) (  xP(x, y)   zQ(y, z))   wR(w, v) free same

Discussion #16 12/12 Universal Quantification of Free Variables in a Tautology Since P(x, y)  P(x, y) is a tautology, it holds for every substitution of values for its variables for every interpretation. Thus, P(x, y)  P(x, y)  y(P(x, y)  P(x, y))   x  y(P(x, y)  P(x, y)) Hence, we can drop the quantifiers for tautologies.