Upload
razne
View
6
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
First Order Logic:Syntax and Semantics
Citation preview
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 1
CS1081
First Order Logic:Syntax and Semantics
COMP30411Sean Bechhofer
2COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Logic Recap
You should already know the basics of First Order Logic (FOL) Its a prerequisite of this course!
The next two lectures provide a brief refresher But we wont go over everything in detail
Youre strongly advised to do some background reading if this isntfamiliar territory Much of the remainder of the course will rely on an
understanding of this material. E.g. The Language of First Order Logic, Jon Barwise & John
Etchemendy, CSLI Lecture Notes, 1993
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 2
3COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
What is a Logic?
When people talk about logic they often mean propositional or first-order predicate logic.
However there are many other logics, for example modal andtemporal logics and description logics. Well meet some of these later on.
A logic usually has a well defined syntax, semantics and proof theory. The syntax of a logic defines the syntactically acceptable objects of
the logic, or well-formed formulae. The semantics of a logic associates each formula with a meaning. The proof theory is concerned with manipulating formulae
according to certain rules.
4COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Coming Up
Over the course of the next few lectures, well look in some detail atthe syntax, semantics and proof theory of propositional logic.
Well then move on to predicate logic, seeing how this extendspropositional logicand touching on some of the key characteristics ofsuch languages.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 3
5COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
An Example: Cloth Weaves[Maier & Warren, Computing with Logic, 1988]
An example showing how we can represent the qualities andcharacteristics of cloth types using a simple propositional logicknowledge base.
6COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Cloth
Woven fabrics consist of two sets of threads interlaced at rightangles.
The warp threads run the length of the fabric The weft (fill, pick or woof) threads are passed back and forth between
the warp threads. When weaving, the warp threads are raised or lowered in patterns,
leading to different weaves. Factors include:
The pattern in which warps and wefts cross Relative sizes of threads Relative spacing of threads Colours of threads
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 4
7COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Plain Weave
Over and under in aregular fashion
8COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Twill Weave
Warp end passes overmore than one weft Known as floats
Successive threadsoffset by 1
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 5
9COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Satin Weave
Longer floats Offsets larger than 1
10COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Classifying Cloth
The example provides a number of rules that describe how particularkinds of cloth are described.
alternatingWarp ! plainWeave If a piece of cloth has alternating warp, then its a plain weave.
hasFloats, warpOffsetEq1 ! twillWeave If a piece of cloth has floats and a warp offset of 1, then its a twill
weave. There are many other properties concerning the colour of threads,
spacings etc.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 6
11COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Using the Rules
We could use these rules to build a system that would be able torecognise different kinds of cloth through recognising the individualcharacteristics.
The example given shows that once we have recognised the followingcharacteristics diagonalTexture floatGTSink colouredWarp whiteFill
Then we can determine that this cloth is denim.
12COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Knowledge Representation
Although this is relatively simple (in terms of both the expressivity ofthe language used and the number of facts), this really is an exampleof Knowledge Representation. The rules represent some knowledge about cloth A machine can make use of this knowledge to deduce
consequences.
This particular example makes use of propositional logic.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 7
13COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Propositional Logic
The syntax of propositional logic is constructed from propositions andconnectives.
A proposition is a statement that is either true or false but not both. Examples: the following are propositions
Walter Smith is Scotland Manager 2 + 3 = 5 Steve MacLaren is Scotland Manager 2 + 3 = 6 the reactor is in a stable state
whereas the following are not What's the time? Fantastic Goal! 2+3 antelope
14COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Propositions
In general, we can determine whether any given statement is aproposition by prefixing it with It is true that
and seeing whether the result makes grammatical sense. Propositions are often abbreviated using propositional variables eg p,
q, r. Thus we must associate the propositional variable with its meaning
i.e. Let p be Tony Blair is Prime Minister. Alternatively we might write something like
reactor_is_in_a_stable_state so that the intended meaning of thepropositional variable is clearer. But we need to be very careful here that we dont encode too
much information in the names of the propositions.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 8
15COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Connectives
Connectives allow us to form compound propositions by combiningpropositions.
$iffif and only if,
!impliesif then)
~negationnot
|disjunctionor
&conjunctionand
16COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
And (Conjunction)
The conjunction p and q, written p q of two propositions is truewhen both p and q are true, false otherwise.
Its Monday and its rainingp q
Its rainingq
Its Mondayp
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 9
17COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Truth Tables
Truth tables provide a summary of a connective. The truth table shows all possible combinations of the inputs to the
connective, along with the outcome. Rows in the table give all possible settings of the propositions to
true (T) or false (F). For a connective with n inputs, we need 2n rows in our truth table. A truth table for is:
FFF
FTF
FFT
TTT
p qqp
18COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Or (Disjunction)
The disjunction p or q, written p q, of two propositions is truewhen p or q (or both) are true, false otherwise.
This is sometimes called inclusive or, as we dont require that only oneof the propositions is true.
FFF
TTF
TFT
TTT
p qqp
Its Monday or its rainingp q
Its rainingq
Its Mondayp
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 10
19COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Not (Negation)
The negation not p of a proposition p is true when p is false and isfalse otherwise. Can also be read as it is false that p
TF
FT
pp
Its false that logic is easyIts not the case that logic is easyLogic isnt easy
p
Logic is easyp
20COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
If then (Implication)
The implication p implies q, written p q, of two propositions istrue when either p is false or q is true, and false otherwise.
TFF
TTF
FFT
TTT
p qqp
If I study hard then, I get richWhen I study hard, I get rich
p q
I get richq
I study hardp
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 11
21COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
If then (Implication)
We need to be careful with as it may not quite capture ourintuitions about implication.
In particular (taking the previous example), p q is true in thefollowing situations: I study hard and I get rich; or I don't study hard and I get rich; or I don't study hard and I don't get rich.
Note the last two situations, where the implication is true regardlessof the truth of p.
The one thing we can say is that if I've studied hard but failed tobecome rich then the proposition is clearly false.
22COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Iff (Bi-implication)
The bi-implication p iff q (p if and only if q), written as p q, of twopropositions is true when both p and q are true or when both p andq are false, and false otherwise.
TFF
FTF
FFT
TTT
p qqp
Sean is happy iff its the weekendp q
Its the weekendq
Sean is happyp
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 12
23COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Propositional Logic: Moreformally
The language of propositional logic consists of the following symbols. A set PROP, of proposition symbols, p, q, r etc A set of propositional connectives:-
nullary connectives true and false; unary connective binary connectives , , ,
The symbols ( and ) these are used to avoid ambiguity.
24COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Well Formed Formulae
The set of Well-Formed Formulae (WFF) is defined as: Any propositional symbols is in WFF The nullary connectives true and false are in WFF If A and B are in WFF then so are
A
(A) A B A B A B
A B
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 13
25COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Examples
p (p) (()) true p true p q
p q (p q) true false p q (p q) r p q r
26COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Truth Tables
We can extend the basic truth tables to show interpretations ofcompound propositions.
To draw up a truth table, construct a column for each propositioninvolved.
We need 2n rows for n propositions in order to record all possibleways of setting the propositions to T and F.
If we have 3 propositions, , i.e. we need 23 = 8 rows. Construct a column for each connective, the most deeply nested first. Evaluate each column using values for propositions or previous
columns.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 14
27COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Example
TTTTFFTFTFFFTFFFFFFF
FTFTr
TTTTp q
FFTTFTFTTTTT(p q) rqp
(p q) r
I eat toast for breakfastr
I eat cereal for breakfastq
I eat eggs for breakfastp
Compound proposition is true if I eat eggs, cereal and toast; or I eat eggs and toast; or I eat cereal and toast
28COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Interpretations
Given a particular formula, can you tell if it is true or not? The truth of a compound formula depends on the truth values of the
component propositions. A truth valuation is a function:
Iv: PROP {T,F}
which assigns a truth value to each atomic proposition Given a truth valuation, we can define a interpretation I that gives a
truth value for a (well-formed) compound formula using the truthvaluation for the atomic propositions and the truth tables for theconnectives involved.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 15
29COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Example
Proposition:(p q) r
Truth valuation:Iv(p) = F, Iv(q) = T, Iv(r) = F
Applying the truth valuation gives us:I((p q) r)
= (Iv(p) Iv(q)) Iv(r))= (F T) F= T F
= F
FFF
TTF
TFT
TTT
p qqp
TFF
TTF
FFT
TTT
p qqp
30COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Semantics of PropositionalLogic
Given an truth valuation Iv:PROP ! {T,F}, we can extend this toprovide us with a interpretation I that assigns either T or F to anystatement of the language.
The symbol is used to represent the relationship betweeninterpretations and formulae:
I A if and only if I Bif, and only ifI A , BIf I A then I Bif, and only ifI A ) BI A or I Bif, and only ifI A BI A and I Bif, and only ifI A BI 2 Aif, and only ifI A
if, and only if Iv(p) = TI pI 2 falseI true
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 16
31COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Tautologies and Satisfiability
A formula is valid or is a tautology iff it is true under everyinterpretation. If A is a tautology, this is written
A A formula is said to be satisfiable (or consistent) iff it is true under at
least one interpretation. A formula is said to be unsatisfiable (or inconsistent or contradictory) iff
there is no interpretation under which it is true If a formula A is a tautology then A is unsatisfiable.
32COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Truth Tables
Each line of a truth table corresponds to a interpretation. So we can use truth tables to determine whether or not
formulae are valid. Example: (p ) q) (q ) p)
TTTF
p ) q
TFTT
q ) p
TFF TTF TTT TFT
(p ) q) (q ) p)qp
Tautology
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 17
33COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Truth Tables
Example: (p ) q) p
TTTF
p ) q
FFF FTF TTT FFT
(p ) q) pqp
Not a tautology, but satisfiable
34COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Translations
An alternative to providing a direct semantics (e.g. Interpretations asweve seen here) is to provide a translation of the connectives
For example, we can define p ! q
as p q
If we look at the truth tables for each of these formulae, then we cansee that for any valuations of p and q, the result is the same.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 18
35COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Defining New connectives
Using this approach of translation rather than a direct semantics, wecan define new connectives.
Recall the truth table for or p q is true when either p or q is true.
Its also true when both p and q are true For some situations, we might want a new connective that tells us
when only one of p or q is true: also known as exclusive or andsometimes written p q
FFF
TTF
TFT
TTT
p qqp
36COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Defining New connectives
We could define p q using a truth table:
Alternatively, we can give a translation to an equivalent expressionusing the other connectives:
p q (p q) (p q)
FFF
TTF
TFT
FTT
p qqp
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 19
37COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Functional Completeness
The above example illustrates that we dont actually need the exclusiveor connective It can be defined in terms of , and
So how many connectives do we really need? We say a set of connectives is functionally complete if there is no
truth table that can not be expressed as a formula involving onlythese connectives.
For example, the set {, , } is functionally complete In fact {,} is functionally complete
De Morgans Laws
38COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Logical Consequences
We have provided definitions of the syntax and semantics ofpropositional logic.
Given a set of formulae, we want to know which formulae are logicalconsequences of that set
B is a consequence of A if its the case that whenever B is true, thenA must be true also. We write:
A B For example, if we know that both p and p ) q hold, then we might
want to be able to conclude that q also holds.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 20
39COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Logical Consequences
We can do this by constructing truth tables. If we want to know whether B follows from A1, A2, . An, then we
could construct a truth table forA1 A2 An ) B
and check to see is this is a tautology. E.g. is it the case that q follows from (p ) q) and p?
Construct a truth table for ((p ) q) p) ) q
TTFT(p ) q)
FFFT(p ) q) p
TFFTTFTFTTTT((p ) q) p) ) qqp
40COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Knowledge Bases
We can now use thise notion of logical consequence. A Knowledge Base K = {p1, , pn} is a collection of propositions that
describe facts about a situation of affairs that we are trying to model We can then derive consequences from this knowledge base where q
is a consequence ifp1,,pn q
For example, the rules encapsulating the different characteristics andqualities of different cloth weaves.
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 21
41COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Logical Consequences
As we saw before, we could test for logical consequence byconstructing truth tables.
If we want to know whether B follows from A1, A2, . An, then wecould construct a truth table for
A1 A2 An ) B
and check to see is this is a tautology. E.g. is it the case that q follows from (p ) q) and p?
Construct a truth table for ((p ) q) p) ) q)
TTFT(p ) q)
FFFT(p ) q) p
TFFTTFTFTTTT((p ) q) p) ) q)qp
Problem: This is potentiallyexpensive: we need 2n rowsfor n propositions, so ourtruth tables may becomelarge.
42COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Proof Rules
An alternative is to use some proof rules or proof theory. Proof rules provide us with a mechanism for determining logical
consequences through some syntactic manipulation of the formulae. A rule stating that B follows (or is provable from) A1,,An is written
as:
A well known proof rule is modus ponens:
where A and B are any WFF.
B
A1 An
B
A ) B A
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 22
43COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
More Proof Rules
A common rule, known as -elimination is:
or
We can read the first as If A and B hold, then A must also hold.
The -introduction rule tells us:
or
Again, we can read the first as: If A holds, then A B must also hold.
A
A B
B
A B
A B
B
A B
A
44COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Proof
By combining proof rules together, we can deduce consequencesfrom premises.
Ex: from p q and q ) r, can we prove r?
1. p q [given]2. q ) r [given]3. q [1 -elimination]
4. r [2,3 modus ponens]
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 23
45COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Proof Theory
This reasoning about statements of the logic is being done withoutconsidering the interpretations Were not drawing up truth tables to work out if the
consequences hold. Proof rules show us, given true statements, how to generate further
true statements. Axioms describe universal truths of the logic
For example, p p is an axiom of propositional logic
46COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Proofs
If A1,An,B are WFF, then there is a proof of B from A1,,An iffthere exists some sequence of formulae C1,,Cn such that Cn = Band each formula Ck for 1 k < n is either an axiom, one of theformulae A1,An or is the conclusion of a rule whose premisesappeared earlier in the sequence.
We write A1,,An ` B to show that B is provable from A1,,An(given some set of proof rules and axioms).
Ex: from p ) q, ( r q) ) (s p), q can we prove s q?1. p ) q [given]2. ( r q) ) (s p) [given]3. q [given]4. s q [3, -introduction]
Alternative would be truth table for (p ) q ( r q) ) (s p) q ) ) (s q)
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 24
47COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Relating Proofs and Semantics
So far weve considered notions of validity and provability Validity is related to semantics. A propositional formula is valid if it is
satisfied under all possible interpretations We draw up a truth table and check that every line evaluates to
true. Provability is related to the proof theory. A propositional formula is
provable if it is an axiom or it is provable from other provableformulae We construct a proof applying proof rules at each step.
Whats the connections between the two? Soundness and Completeness
48COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Soundness
We write A1,,An ` B to denote that B is provable from A1,,Anusing a set of proof rules
A Soundness theorem states that:If A1,,An ` Bthen A1 An B (i.e. A1 An ) B is valid)
Informally, soundness gives us an assurance that our proof theory isproducing correct answers
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 25
49COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Completeness
A Completeness theorem states that:If A1 An B (i.e. A1 An ) B is valid)then A1,,An ` B
Informally, completeness gives us an assurance that if a formula isvalid, we can construct a proof of it using our proof theory.
Note that completeness doesnt say anything at all about how wemight go about constructing such a proof just that the proofexists.
Note that both soundness andcompleteness are with respectto a particular set of axiomsand proof rules. `
Completeness
Soundness
50COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Soundness and Completeness
An example of an unsound rule is:
Using this rule, given any p and q, we can deduce an arbitrary r.However p q ) r is not a valid formula. Thus including this rule inour proof rules would not give us soundness.
If we only have rules for modus ponens and -elimination, we do nothave completeness. With only those rules, we cant prove
p ` p q
even thoughp ) (p q)
is valid
C
A B
COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
University of Manchester, 2006 26
51COMP30411: Knowledge Representation
Summary
Weve seen a (brief) overview of propositional logic, its syntax,semantics and proof theory. We havent seen all the details of the proof rules for
propositional logic though. These can be found in anyintroductory logic text.
Weve seen the notions of soundness and completeness, relating theinterpretation semantics and the proof theory.
Next, well look at predicate calculus, which gives us a much moreexpressive language than propositional logic.