The Logic of Quantifiers Chapter 10 Language, Proof and Logic.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 2 Fundamentals of Logic Dept of Information management National Central University Yen-Liang Chen.
Advertisements

Methods of Proof for Quantifiers Chapter 12 Language, Proof and Logic.
© by Kenneth H. Rosen, Discrete Mathematics & its Applications, Sixth Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, 2007 Chapter 1: (Part 2): The Foundations: Logic and Proofs.
Predicate Calculus Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson.
Truth Trees Intermediate Logic.
CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
Discussion #16 1/12 Discussion #16 Validity & Equivalences.
Computability and Complexity 9-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Logic Reminder (Cnt’d)
Computability and Complexity 8-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Logic Reminder.
1 Chapter 7 Propositional and Predicate Logic. 2 Chapter 7 Contents (1) l What is Logic? l Logical Operators l Translating between English and Logic l.
From Chapter 4 Formal Specification using Z David Lightfoot
Predicate Logic.
Proving the implications of the truth functional notions  How to prove claims that are the implications of the truth functional notions  Remember that.
EE1J2 - Slide 1 EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 6 Limitations of propositional logic Introduction to predicate logic Symbols, terms and formulae, Parse.
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 01/20/11 Ming-Hsuan Yang UC Merced 1.
Adapted from Discrete Math
1 CS 1502 Formal Methods in Computer Science Lecture Notes 12 Variables and Quantifiers.
Section 1.3: Predicates and Quantifiers
Debbie Mueller Mathematical Logic Spring English sentences take the form Q A B Q is a determiner expression  the, every, some, more than, at least,
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FALL 2009 Quiz Game. ConceptsTrue/FalseTranslations Informal Proofs Formal Proofs
CSCI 115 Chapter 2 Logic. CSCI 115 §2.1 Propositions and Logical Operations.
Mathematical Structures A collection of objects with operations defined on them and the accompanying properties form a mathematical structure or system.
Logic Introduction to Logic.
Theoretical basis of GUHA Definition 1. A (simplified) observational predicate language L n consists of (i) (unary) predicates P 1,…,P n, and an infinite.
Advanced Topics in FOL Chapter 18 Language, Proof and Logic.
Review I Rosen , 3.1 Know your definitions!
Chap. 2 Fundamentals of Logic. Proposition Proposition (or statement): an declarative sentence that is either true or false, but not both. e.g. –Margret.
Can’t be c can’t be b Could be cthis is bcould be c.
Chapter 1, Part II: Predicate Logic With Question/Answer Animations.
1 Section 7.2 Equivalent Formulas Two wffs A and B are equivalent, written A  B, if they have the same truth value for every interpretation. Property:
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.
Advanced Topics in Propositional Logic Chapter 17 Language, Proof and Logic.
Introduction to Quantification Chapter 9 Language, Proof and Logic.
Propositional Logic Dr. Rogelio Dávila Pérez Profesor-Investigador División de Posgrado Universidad Autónoma Guadalajara
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.
Chapter Three Truth Tables 1. Computing Truth-Values We can use truth tables to determine the truth-value of any compound sentence containing one of.
Chapter 1, Part II: Predicate Logic With Question/Answer Animations.
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC Jennifer Wang Fall 2009 Midterm Review Quiz Game.
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.
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.
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.
0 Propositional logic versus first-order (predicate) logic The universe of discourse Constants, variables, terms and valuations Predicates as generalized.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Predicate Logic Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section: To introduce predicate logic (or.
Fall 2008/2009 I. Arwa Linjawi & I. Asma’a Ashenkity 1 The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Predicates and Quantifiers.
CS 285- Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4. Section 1.3 Predicate logic Predicate logic is an extension of propositional logic that permits concisely reasoning.
CSNB143 – Discrete Structure Topic 4 – Logic. Learning Outcomes Students should be able to define statement. Students should be able to identify connectives.
Chapter 2 Fundamentals of Logic 1. What is a valid argument or proof?
The Logic of Atomic Sentences Chapter 2 Language, Proof and Logic.
Symbolic Logic The Following slide were written using materials from the Book: The Following slide were written using materials from the Book: Discrete.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [INTELLIGENT AGENTS PARADIGM] Professor Janis Grundspenkis Riga Technical University Faculty of Computer Science and Information.
Propositional Logic Rather than jumping right into FOL, we begin with propositional logic A logic involves: §Language (with a syntax) §Semantics §Proof.
1 CS1502 Formal Methods in Computer Science Notes 15 Problem Sessions.
Mathematics for Comter I Lecture 3: Logic (2) Propositional Equivalences Predicates and Quantifiers.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements. Predicate Calculus Instructor: Hayk Melikya 3.1.
The Logic of Boolean Connectives Chapter 4 Language, Proof and Logic.
Section 1.4. Propositional Functions Propositional functions become propositions (and have truth values) when their variables are each replaced by a value.
Introduction to Predicates and Quantified Statements I Lecture 9 Section 2.1 Wed, Jan 31, 2007.
1 Section 7.1 First-Order Predicate Calculus Predicate calculus studies the internal structure of sentences where subjects are applied to predicates existentially.
Discrete Math by R.S. Chang, Dept. CSIE, NDHU1 Fundamentals of Logic 1. What is a valid argument or proof? 2. Study system of logic 3. In proving theorems.
رياضيات متقطعة لعلوم الحاسب MATH 226. Chapter 1 Predicates and Quantifiers 1.4.
Formal Proofs and Quantifiers
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary
CSNB 143 Discrete Mathematical Structures
Chapter 8 Logic Topics
Information Technology Department
CS 1502 Formal Methods in Computer Science
Predicates and Quantifiers
Presentation transcript:

The Logic of Quantifiers Chapter 10 Language, Proof and Logic

First-order vs. second-order 10.0 First-order:  x [Loves(max,x)  Loves(x,max)] Second-order:  P [P(max)  P(julia)] Mixed:  P [  xP(x)   xP(x)]

Tautologies and quantification 10.1.a Are the following arguments valid? Are they tautologically so?  x [Cube(x)  Small(x)]  x Cube(x)  x Cube(x)  x Small(x)  x Small(x)  x [Cube(x)  Small(x)]  x [Cube(x)  Small(x)]  x Cube(x)  x Cube(x)  x Small(x)  x Small(x)  x [Cube(x)  Small(x)]

Tautologies and quantification 10.1.b Are the following sentences logically true? Are they also tautologies?  x [Cube(x)   Cube(x)]  x Cube(x)   x  Cube(x)  xCube(x)   x  Cube(x)  x Cube(x)   xCube(x) [  y(P(y)  R(y))   x(P(x)  Q(x))]  [  x(P(x)  Q(x))   y(P(y)  R(y))] [A  B]  [  B  A] The truth-functional form of the previous sentence A quantified sentence of FOL is said to be a tautology iff its truth-functional form is a tautology.

Tautologies and quantification 10.1.c FO sentence Its truth-functional form  xCube(x)   xCube(x) [  yTet(y)  zSmall(z)]   zSmall(z)  xCube(x)   yTet(y)  xCube(x)  Cube(a)  x(Cube(x)   Cube(x))  x[Cube(x)  Small(x)]   xDodec(x)

First-order validity and consequence 10.2.a Propositional logic First-order logic General notion Tautology FO validity Logical truth Tautological consequence FO consequence Logical consequence Tautological equivalence FO equivalence Logical equivalence FO validity, consequence and equivalence mean those that hold solely in virtue of the truth-functional connectives, quantifiers and identity. Two reasons for treating identity as a logical symbol: 1. = is very common and universal 2. = allows us to express many quantified noun phrases, such as “exactly one”, “at least 5”, “at most 7”, etc.

First-order validity and consequence 10.2.b Are the following sentence FO valid?  xSameSize(x,x)  xCube(x)  Cube(b) [Cube(b)  b=c]  Cube(c) [Small(b)  SameSize(b,c)]  Small(c)  xBolshe(x,x)  xTove(x)  Tove(b) [Tove(b)  b=c]  Tove(c) [Cheten(b)  Menshe(b,c)]  Cheten(c)  xB(x,x)  xT(x)  T(b) [T(b)  b=c]  T(c) [C(b)  M(b,c)]  C(c) To test FO validity, consequence or equivalence: Use nonsense Replace by meaningless symbols

First-order validity and consequence 10.2.c Are the conclusions of the following arguments FO consequences of the premises?  x[Tet(x)  Large(x)]  Large(b)  Tet(b)   xLarger(x,a)  xLarger(b,x) Larger(c,d) Larger(a,b)   xLoves(x,moriarty)  xLoves(scrooge,x) Loves(romeo,juliet) Loves(moriarty,scrooge) Generally, recognizing FO (non)validity is not easy. No computer can ever be able to successfully handle every instance of this problem! You try it, p. 273

First-order equivalence and DeMorgan’s laws 10.3.a Are the following pairs FO equivalent? Are they also tautologically so?  [  xCube(x)  yDodec(y)] vs.  xCube(x)   yDodec(y)  x[Cube(x)  Small(x)] vs.  x[  Small(x)   Cube(x)] We say that two wffs are FO equivalent iff, when you replace their free variables by new names, the resulting sentences are FO equivalent. Substitution of a (sub)wff by a FO equivalent one preserves FO equivalence. Hence, e.g., we have:  x[Cube(x)  Small(x)]   x[  Cube(x)  Small(x)]   x[  Cube(x)   Small(x)]   x  [Cube(x)   Small(x)]

First-order equivalence and DeMorgan’s laws 10.3.b Remember that  is a “big conjunction” and  a “big disjunction”. Hence no wonder that DeMorgan’s laws extend to quantifiers: Example: Bring the following formula down to an equivalent formula where negation is only applied to atoms:  xP(x)   x  P(x)   xP(x)   x  P(x)  x[P(x)  Q(x)]

Other quantifier equivalences 10.4  x[P(x)  Q(x)]   xP(x)  xQ(x)  x[P(x)  Q(x)]   xP(x)  xQ(x)  x[P(x)  Q(x)]   xP(x)  xQ(x)  x[P(x)  Q(x)]   xP(x)  xQ(x) When P has no free occurrences of x (“null quantification”):  xP  P  xP  P  x[P  Q(x)]  P  xQ(x)  x[P  Q(x)]  P  xQ(x) When y does not occur in P(x) (“replacing bound variables”):  xP(x)   yP(y)  xP(x)   yP(y)