Logic as a Tool Chapter 3: Understanding First-order Logic 3.4 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Goranko

Logic as a Tool Chapter 3: Understanding First-order Logic 3.4 Truth, validity, logical consequence and equivalence in first-order logic

Valentin Goranko Stockholm University December 2020

Goranko

Truth of sentences in structures

Goranko

Truth of sentences in structures. Models and countermodels.

Goranko

Truth of sentences in structures. Models and countermodels.

A sentence is a formula with no free variables.

Goranko

Truth of sentences in structures. Models and countermodels.

A sentence is a formula with no free variables. Hence, the truth of a sentence in a given structure does not depend on the variable assignment.

Goranko

Truth of sentences in structures. Models and countermodels.

A sentence is a formula with no free variables. Hence, the truth of a sentence in a given structure does not depend on the variable assignment. Therefore, for a structure S and sentence A we can simply write S | = A if S, v | = A for any/every variable assignment v.

Goranko

Truth of sentences in structures. Models and countermodels.

A sentence is a formula with no free variables. Hence, the truth of a sentence in a given structure does not depend on the variable assignment. Therefore, for a structure S and sentence A we can simply write S | = A if S, v | = A for any/every variable assignment v. We then say that S is a model of A and that A is true in S, or that A is satisfied by S.

Goranko

Truth of sentences in structures. Models and countermodels.

A sentence is a formula with no free variables. Hence, the truth of a sentence in a given structure does not depend on the variable assignment. Therefore, for a structure S and sentence A we can simply write S | = A if S, v | = A for any/every variable assignment v. We then say that S is a model of A and that A is true in S, or that A is satisfied by S. Otherwise we write S | = A and say that S is a counter-model for A.

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∃x∀y(C(x, y) → C(y, x)).

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∃x∀y(C(x, y) → C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y∀z(C(x, y) ∧ C(y, x) → C(z, z)).

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∃x∀y(C(x, y) → C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y∀z(C(x, y) ∧ C(y, x) → C(z, z)).

• H

?

| = ∃x(Drinks(x) → ∀xDrinks(x)).

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∃x∀y(C(x, y) → C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y∀z(C(x, y) ∧ C(y, x) → C(z, z)).

• H

?

| = ∃x(Drinks(x) → ∀xDrinks(x)).

• H |

= ∀x∀y(∃z(x = m(z) ∧ y = m(z)) → x = y).

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∃x∀y(C(x, y) → C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y∀z(C(x, y) ∧ C(y, x) → C(z, z)).

• H

?

| = ∃x(Drinks(x) → ∀xDrinks(x)).

• H |

= ∀x∀y(∃z(x = m(z) ∧ y = m(z)) → x = y). (Is this sentence only true for the standard interpretation of m?)

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∃x∀y(C(x, y) → C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y∀z(C(x, y) ∧ C(y, x) → C(z, z)).

• H

?

| = ∃x(Drinks(x) → ∀xDrinks(x)).

• H |

= ∀x∀y(∃z(x = m(z) ∧ y = m(z)) → x = y). (Is this sentence only true for the standard interpretation of m?)

• N

?

| = (∀x(∀y(y < x → P(y)) → P(x)) → ∀xP(x)), where P is any (uninterpreted) unary predicate. True or false?

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∃x∀y(C(x, y) → C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y∀z(C(x, y) ∧ C(y, x) → C(z, z)).

• H

?

| = ∃x(Drinks(x) → ∀xDrinks(x)).

• H |

= ∀x∀y(∃z(x = m(z) ∧ y = m(z)) → x = y). (Is this sentence only true for the standard interpretation of m?)

• N

?

| = (∀x(∀y(y < x → P(y)) → P(x)) → ∀xP(x)), where P is any (uninterpreted) unary predicate. True or false? What does this sentence say about N?

Goranko

Truth of first-order sentences: more examples

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y(C(x, y) ∨ ¬C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∃y(C(x, y) ∨ C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∃x∀y(C(x, y) → C(y, x)).

• H

?

| = ∀x∀y∀z(C(x, y) ∧ C(y, x) → C(z, z)).

• H

?

| = ∃x(Drinks(x) → ∀xDrinks(x)).

• H |

= ∀x∀y(∃z(x = m(z) ∧ y = m(z)) → x = y). (Is this sentence only true for the standard interpretation of m?)

• N

?

| = (∀x(∀y(y < x → P(y)) → P(x)) → ∀xP(x)), where P is any (uninterpreted) unary predicate. True or false? What does this sentence say about N? Is it true in Z, too?

Goranko

Satisfiability, validity, and logical consequence

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of sentences

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of sentences

A sentence A is:

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of sentences

A sentence A is:

• satisfiable if S |

= A for some structure S;

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of sentences

A sentence A is:

• satisfiable if S |

= A for some structure S;

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S | = A for every structure S;

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of sentences

A sentence A is:

• satisfiable if S |

= A for some structure S;

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S | = A for every structure S;

• falsifiable, if it is not logically valid, i.e. if it has a counter-model.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S, v | = A for every structure S and every variable assignment v in S.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S, v | = A for every structure S and every variable assignment v in S.

• falsifiable, if it is not logically valid.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S, v | = A for every structure S and every variable assignment v in S.

• falsifiable, if it is not logically valid.

Let A = A(x1, . . . , xn) be any first-order formula all free variables in which are amongst x1, . . . , xn.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S, v | = A for every structure S and every variable assignment v in S.

• falsifiable, if it is not logically valid.

Let A = A(x1, . . . , xn) be any first-order formula all free variables in which are amongst x1, . . . , xn. The sentence ∃x1 . . . ∃xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a existential closure of A;

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S, v | = A for every structure S and every variable assignment v in S.

• falsifiable, if it is not logically valid.

Let A = A(x1, . . . , xn) be any first-order formula all free variables in which are amongst x1, . . . , xn. The sentence ∃x1 . . . ∃xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a existential closure of A; the sentence ∀x1 . . . ∀xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a universal closure of A.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S, v | = A for every structure S and every variable assignment v in S.

• falsifiable, if it is not logically valid.

Let A = A(x1, . . . , xn) be any first-order formula all free variables in which are amongst x1, . . . , xn. The sentence ∃x1 . . . ∃xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a existential closure of A; the sentence ∀x1 . . . ∀xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a universal closure of A. Claim:

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S, v | = A for every structure S and every variable assignment v in S.

• falsifiable, if it is not logically valid.

Let A = A(x1, . . . , xn) be any first-order formula all free variables in which are amongst x1, . . . , xn. The sentence ∃x1 . . . ∃xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a existential closure of A; the sentence ∀x1 . . . ∀xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a universal closure of A. Claim:

• A(x1, . . . , xn) is satisfiable iff ∃x1 . . . ∃xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is satisfiable.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of any first-order formulae

A first-order formula A is:

• A is satisfiable if S, v |

= A for some structure S and some variable assignment v in S.

• (logically) valid, denoted |

= A, if S, v | = A for every structure S and every variable assignment v in S.

• falsifiable, if it is not logically valid.

Let A = A(x1, . . . , xn) be any first-order formula all free variables in which are amongst x1, . . . , xn. The sentence ∃x1 . . . ∃xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a existential closure of A; the sentence ∀x1 . . . ∀xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is a universal closure of A. Claim:

• A(x1, . . . , xn) is satisfiable iff ∃x1 . . . ∃xnA(x1, . . . , xn) is satisfiable.
• |

= A(x1, . . . , xn) iff | = ∀x1 . . . ∀xnA(x1, . . . , xn).

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of formulae: examples

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of formulae: examples

• The formula P(x) is satisfiable,

because its existential closure ∃xP(x) is satisfiable.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of formulae: examples

• The formula P(x) is satisfiable,

because its existential closure ∃xP(x) is satisfiable.

• However, P(x) is not valid,

because its universal closure ∀xP(x) is not valid.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of formulae: examples

• The formula P(x) is satisfiable,

because its existential closure ∃xP(x) is satisfiable.

• However, P(x) is not valid,

because its universal closure ∀xP(x) is not valid.

• The formula P(x) ∨ ¬P(x) is valid,

because ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬P(x)) is valid.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of formulae: examples

• The formula P(x) is satisfiable,

because its existential closure ∃xP(x) is satisfiable.

• However, P(x) is not valid,

because its universal closure ∀xP(x) is not valid.

• The formula P(x) ∨ ¬P(x) is valid,

because ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬P(x)) is valid.

• The formula P(x) ∧ ¬P(x) is not satisfiable,

because its existential closure ∃x(P(x) ∧ ¬P(x)) is not satisfiable.

Goranko

First-order instances of propositional formulae

Goranko

First-order instances of propositional formulae

Any uniform substitution of first-order formulae for the propositional variables in a propositional formula A produces a first-order formula, called a first-order instance of A.

Goranko

First-order instances of propositional formulae

Any uniform substitution of first-order formulae for the propositional variables in a propositional formula A produces a first-order formula, called a first-order instance of A. Example: take the propositional formula A = (p ∧ ¬q) → (q ∨ p).

Goranko

First-order instances of propositional formulae

Any uniform substitution of first-order formulae for the propositional variables in a propositional formula A produces a first-order formula, called a first-order instance of A. Example: take the propositional formula A = (p ∧ ¬q) → (q ∨ p). The uniform substitution of (5 < x) for p and ∃y(x = y2) for q in A results in the first-order instance ((5 < x) ∧ ¬∃y(x = y2)) → (∃y(x = y2) ∨ (5 < x)).

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of first-order instances

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of first-order instances

• If a propositional formula A is valid (tautology),

then every first-order instance of A is valid.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of first-order instances

• If a propositional formula A is valid (tautology),

then every first-order instance of A is valid. Thus, for instance, | = ¬¬(x > 0) → (x > 0)

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of first-order instances

• If a propositional formula A is valid (tautology),

then every first-order instance of A is valid. Thus, for instance, | = ¬¬(x > 0) → (x > 0) and | = Q(x, y) ∨ ¬Q(x, y).

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of first-order instances

• If a propositional formula A is valid (tautology),

then every first-order instance of A is valid. Thus, for instance, | = ¬¬(x > 0) → (x > 0) and | = Q(x, y) ∨ ¬Q(x, y). What about vice versa?

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of first-order instances

• If a propositional formula A is valid (tautology),

then every first-order instance of A is valid. Thus, for instance, | = ¬¬(x > 0) → (x > 0) and | = Q(x, y) ∨ ¬Q(x, y). What about vice versa? Yes. Why?

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of first-order instances

• If a propositional formula A is valid (tautology),

then every first-order instance of A is valid. Thus, for instance, | = ¬¬(x > 0) → (x > 0) and | = Q(x, y) ∨ ¬Q(x, y). What about vice versa? Yes. Why?

• Likewise, a propositional formula A is satisfiable

if and only if some first-order instance of A is satisfiable.

Goranko

Satisfiability and validity of first-order instances

• If a propositional formula A is valid (tautology),

then every first-order instance of A is valid. Thus, for instance, | = ¬¬(x > 0) → (x > 0) and | = Q(x, y) ∨ ¬Q(x, y). What about vice versa? Yes. Why?

• Likewise, a propositional formula A is satisfiable

if and only if some first-order instance of A is satisfiable. Why?

Goranko

Logical consequence in first order logic

Goranko

Logical consequence in first order logic

We fix an arbitrary first-order language L.

Goranko

Logical consequence in first order logic

We fix an arbitrary first-order language L. Given a set of L-formulae Γ, an L-structure S, and a variable assignment v in S, we write S, v | = Γ to say that S, v | = A for every A ∈ Γ.

Goranko

Logical consequence in first order logic

We fix an arbitrary first-order language L. Given a set of L-formulae Γ, an L-structure S, and a variable assignment v in S, we write S, v | = Γ to say that S, v | = A for every A ∈ Γ. A formula A follows logically from a set of formulae Γ, denoted Γ | = A, if for every structure S and a variable assignment v : VAR →S: S, v | = Γ implies S, v | = A.

Goranko

Logical consequence in first order logic

We fix an arbitrary first-order language L. Given a set of L-formulae Γ, an L-structure S, and a variable assignment v in S, we write S, v | = Γ to say that S, v | = A for every A ∈ Γ. A formula A follows logically from a set of formulae Γ, denoted Γ | = A, if for every structure S and a variable assignment v : VAR →S: S, v | = Γ implies S, v | = A. Note that ∅ | = A iff | = A. Why?

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B,

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution,

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution, then A′

1, . . . , A′ n |

= B′.

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution, then A′

1, . . . , A′ n |

= B′. For example:

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution, then A′

1, . . . , A′ n |

= B′. For example: ∃xA, ∃xA → ∀yB | = ∀yB.

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution, then A′

1, . . . , A′ n |

= B′. For example: ∃xA, ∃xA → ∀yB | = ∀yB.

• ∀xP(x), ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) |

= ∀xQ(x).

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution, then A′

1, . . . , A′ n |

= B′. For example: ∃xA, ∃xA → ∀yB | = ∀yB.

• ∀xP(x), ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) |

= ∀xQ(x). NB: this is not an instance of a propositional logical consequence.

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution, then A′

1, . . . , A′ n |

= B′. For example: ∃xA, ∃xA → ∀yB | = ∀yB.

• ∀xP(x), ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) |

= ∀xQ(x). NB: this is not an instance of a propositional logical consequence.

• ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) |

= ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)).

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution, then A′

1, . . . , A′ n |

= B′. For example: ∃xA, ∃xA → ∀yB | = ∀yB.

• ∀xP(x), ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) |

= ∀xQ(x). NB: this is not an instance of a propositional logical consequence.

• ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) |

= ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)). Indeed, the structure N ′ obtained from N where P(x) is interpreted as ‘x is even’ and Q(x) is interpreted as ‘x is odd’ is a counter-model: N ′ | = ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x)

Goranko

Logical consequence: examples

• If A1, . . . , An, B are prop. formulae such that A1, . . . , An |

= B, and A′

1, . . . , A′ n, B′ are first-order instances of A1, . . . , An, B obtained by

the same substitution, then A′

1, . . . , A′ n |

= B′. For example: ∃xA, ∃xA → ∀yB | = ∀yB.

• ∀xP(x), ∀x(P(x) → Q(x)) |

= ∀xQ(x). NB: this is not an instance of a propositional logical consequence.

• ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x) |

= ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)). Indeed, the structure N ′ obtained from N where P(x) is interpreted as ‘x is even’ and Q(x) is interpreted as ‘x is odd’ is a counter-model: N ′ | = ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x), while N ′ | = ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)).

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Logical equivalence in first-order logic satisfies all basic properties of propositional logical consequence. In particular, the following are equivalent:

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Logical equivalence in first-order logic satisfies all basic properties of propositional logical consequence. In particular, the following are equivalent:

• 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B.

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Logical equivalence in first-order logic satisfies all basic properties of propositional logical consequence. In particular, the following are equivalent:

• 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B.

• 2. A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An |

= B.

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Logical equivalence in first-order logic satisfies all basic properties of propositional logical consequence. In particular, the following are equivalent:

• 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B.

• 2. A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An |

= B.

• 3. |

= A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An → B.

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Logical equivalence in first-order logic satisfies all basic properties of propositional logical consequence. In particular, the following are equivalent:

• 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B.

• 2. A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An |

= B.

• 3. |

= A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An → B.

• 4. |

= A1 → (A2 → · · · (An → B) . . .).

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Logical equivalence in first-order logic satisfies all basic properties of propositional logical consequence. In particular, the following are equivalent:

• 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B.

• 2. A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An |

= B.

• 3. |

= A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An → B.

• 4. |

= A1 → (A2 → · · · (An → B) . . .). Furthermore, for any first-order formula A and a term t that is free for substitution for x in A:

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Logical equivalence in first-order logic satisfies all basic properties of propositional logical consequence. In particular, the following are equivalent:

• 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B.

• 2. A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An |

= B.

• 3. |

= A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An → B.

• 4. |

= A1 → (A2 → · · · (An → B) . . .). Furthermore, for any first-order formula A and a term t that is free for substitution for x in A:

• 1. ∀xA |

= A[t/x].

Goranko

Logical consequence: some basic properties

Logical equivalence in first-order logic satisfies all basic properties of propositional logical consequence. In particular, the following are equivalent:

• 1. A1, . . . , An |

= B.

• 2. A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An |

= B.

• 3. |

= A1 ∧ · · · ∧ An → B.

• 4. |

= A1 → (A2 → · · · (An → B) . . .). Furthermore, for any first-order formula A and a term t that is free for substitution for x in A:

• 1. ∀xA |

= A[t/x].

• 2. A[t/x] |

= ∃xA.

Goranko

First-order logical consequence: more basic properties

Goranko

First-order logical consequence: more basic properties

• 1. If A1, . . . , An |

= B then ∀xA1, . . . , ∀xAn | = ∀xB.

Goranko

First-order logical consequence: more basic properties

• 1. If A1, . . . , An |

= B then ∀xA1, . . . , ∀xAn | = ∀xB.

• 2. If A1, . . . , An |

= B and x does not occur free in A1, . . . , An then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB.

Goranko

First-order logical consequence: more basic properties

• 1. If A1, . . . , An |

= B then ∀xA1, . . . , ∀xAn | = ∀xB.

• 2. If A1, . . . , An |

= B and x does not occur free in A1, . . . , An then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB.

• 3. If A1, . . . , An |

= B and A1, . . . , An are sentences, then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB, and hence A1, . . . , An | = B, where B is any universal closure of B.

Goranko

First-order logical consequence: more basic properties

• 1. If A1, . . . , An |

= B then ∀xA1, . . . , ∀xAn | = ∀xB.

• 2. If A1, . . . , An |

= B and x does not occur free in A1, . . . , An then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB.

• 3. If A1, . . . , An |

= B and A1, . . . , An are sentences, then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB, and hence A1, . . . , An | = B, where B is any universal closure of B.

• 4. If A1, . . . , An |

= B[c/x], where c is a constant symbol not occurring in A1, . . . , An, B, then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB(x).

Goranko

First-order logical consequence: more basic properties

• 1. If A1, . . . , An |

= B then ∀xA1, . . . , ∀xAn | = ∀xB.

• 2. If A1, . . . , An |

= B and x does not occur free in A1, . . . , An then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB.

• 3. If A1, . . . , An |

= B and A1, . . . , An are sentences, then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB, and hence A1, . . . , An | = B, where B is any universal closure of B.

• 4. If A1, . . . , An |

= B[c/x], where c is a constant symbol not occurring in A1, . . . , An, B, then A1, . . . , An | = ∀xB(x).

• 5. If A1, . . . , An, A[c/x] |

= B, where c is a constant symbol not occurring in A1, . . . , An, A, or B, then A1, . . . , An, ∃xA | = B.

Goranko

Equality in first-order logic

Goranko

Equality in first-order logic

Goranko

Equality in first-order logic

The equality symbol =, sometimes also called identity, is a special binary relational symbol, always meant to be interpreted as the identity of

• bjects in the domain of discourse.

Goranko

Equality in first-order logic

The equality symbol =, sometimes also called identity, is a special binary relational symbol, always meant to be interpreted as the identity of

• bjects in the domain of discourse.

The equality is very useful to specify constraints on the size of the model:

Goranko

Equality in first-order logic

The equality symbol =, sometimes also called identity, is a special binary relational symbol, always meant to be interpreted as the identity of

• bjects in the domain of discourse.

The equality is very useful to specify constraints on the size of the model:

• 1. The sentence

λn = ∃x1 · · · ∃xn(

• 1≤i=j≤n

¬xi = xj) states that the domain has at least n elements.

Goranko

Equality in first-order logic

The equality symbol =, sometimes also called identity, is a special binary relational symbol, always meant to be interpreted as the identity of

• bjects in the domain of discourse.

The equality is very useful to specify constraints on the size of the model:

• 1. The sentence

λn = ∃x1 · · · ∃xn(

• 1≤i=j≤n

¬xi = xj) states that the domain has at least n elements.

• 2. The sentence µn = ¬λn+1 or, equivalently,

µn = ∀x1 · · · ∀xn+1(

• 1≤i=j≤n+1

xi = xj) states that the domain has at most n elements.

Goranko

Equality in first-order logic

The equality symbol =, sometimes also called identity, is a special binary relational symbol, always meant to be interpreted as the identity of

• bjects in the domain of discourse.

The equality is very useful to specify constraints on the size of the model:

• 1. The sentence

λn = ∃x1 · · · ∃xn(

• 1≤i=j≤n

¬xi = xj) states that the domain has at least n elements.

• 2. The sentence µn = ¬λn+1 or, equivalently,

µn = ∀x1 · · · ∀xn+1(

• 1≤i=j≤n+1

xi = xj) states that the domain has at most n elements.

• 3. The sentence σn = λn ∧ µn states that the domain has exactly n

elements.

Goranko

Equality in first-order logic

The equality symbol =, sometimes also called identity, is a special binary relational symbol, always meant to be interpreted as the identity of

• bjects in the domain of discourse.

The equality is very useful to specify constraints on the size of the model:

• 1. The sentence

λn = ∃x1 · · · ∃xn(

• 1≤i=j≤n

¬xi = xj) states that the domain has at least n elements.

• 2. The sentence µn = ¬λn+1 or, equivalently,

µn = ∀x1 · · · ∀xn+1(

• 1≤i=j≤n+1

xi = xj) states that the domain has at most n elements.

• 3. The sentence σn = λn ∧ µn states that the domain has exactly n

elements. Proof: exercises.

Goranko

Using equality for counting

The sentences λn, µn, σn are easily relativised for every formula A(x) containing (possibly amongst others) the free variable x to the subset of the domain consisting of the elements satisfying A.

Goranko

Using equality for counting

The sentences λn, µn, σn are easily relativised for every formula A(x) containing (possibly amongst others) the free variable x to the subset of the domain consisting of the elements satisfying A. For instance:

• “At least two students scored distinction in the exam”

can be formalised in the domain of all humans as ∃x1∃x2(Student(x1) ∧ Student(x2) ∧ ¬x1 = x2 ∧ Dist(x1) ∧ Dist(x2))

Goranko

Using equality for counting

The sentences λn, µn, σn are easily relativised for every formula A(x) containing (possibly amongst others) the free variable x to the subset of the domain consisting of the elements satisfying A. For instance:

• “At least two students scored distinction in the exam”

can be formalised in the domain of all humans as ∃x1∃x2(Student(x1) ∧ Student(x2) ∧ ¬x1 = x2 ∧ Dist(x1) ∧ Dist(x2))

• “Exactly two students scored distinction in the exam”

can likewise be formalised as: ∃x1∃x2(Student(x1) ∧ Student(x2) ∧ x1 = x2 ∧ Dist(x1) ∧ Dist(x2))∧ ∀y((Student(y) ∧ y = x1 ∧ y = x2) → ¬Dist(y)) (where = stands for ¬ =)

Goranko

Using equality to express uniqueness, functionality, etc.

• 1. For any formula A(x) (which may also contain other free variables),

the formula ∃!xA(x) := (A(x) ∧ ∀y(A(y) → x = y)) states

Goranko

Using equality to express uniqueness, functionality, etc.

• 1. For any formula A(x) (which may also contain other free variables),

the formula ∃!xA(x) := (A(x) ∧ ∀y(A(y) → x = y)) states that there is a unique element in the domain of discourse satisfying A, for the current values of the parameters ¯ z.

Goranko

Using equality to express uniqueness, functionality, etc.

• 1. For any formula A(x) (which may also contain other free variables),

the formula ∃!xA(x) := (A(x) ∧ ∀y(A(y) → x = y)) states that there is a unique element in the domain of discourse satisfying A, for the current values of the parameters ¯ z.

• 2. Thus, the sentence ∀x∃!yR(x, y) in the language with = and a

binary relational symbol R states that the relation R is functional, i.e. every element of the domain is R-related to a unique element.

Goranko

Using equality to express uniqueness, functionality, etc.

• 1. For any formula A(x) (which may also contain other free variables),

the formula ∃!xA(x) := (A(x) ∧ ∀y(A(y) → x = y)) states that there is a unique element in the domain of discourse satisfying A, for the current values of the parameters ¯ z.

• 2. Thus, the sentence ∀x∃!yR(x, y) in the language with = and a

binary relational symbol R states that the relation R is functional, i.e. every element of the domain is R-related to a unique element.

• 3. The sentence ∀x∀y(f (x) = f (y) → x = y)) in the language with =

and a unary functional symbol f states that the function f is injective, that is (read by contraposition), assigns different values to different arguments.

Goranko

Using equality in first-order logic: more examples

Sometimes the equality is implicit in natural language expressions, such as

• “Everyone, except possibly John, understood the joke.”.

Goranko

Using equality in first-order logic: more examples

Sometimes the equality is implicit in natural language expressions, such as

• “Everyone, except possibly John, understood the joke.”.

It becomes explicit and readily translatable (exercise) to FOL when rephrased as “Everyone, who is not (equal to) John, understood the joke.”

Goranko

Using equality in first-order logic: more examples

Sometimes the equality is implicit in natural language expressions, such as

• “Everyone, except possibly John, understood the joke.”.

It becomes explicit and readily translatable (exercise) to FOL when rephrased as “Everyone, who is not (equal to) John, understood the joke.”

• Likewise, “Only John and Mary enjoyed the party.”

can be rephrased as

Goranko

Using equality in first-order logic: more examples

Sometimes the equality is implicit in natural language expressions, such as

• “Everyone, except possibly John, understood the joke.”.

It becomes explicit and readily translatable (exercise) to FOL when rephrased as “Everyone, who is not (equal to) John, understood the joke.”

• Likewise, “Only John and Mary enjoyed the party.”

can be rephrased as “John and Mary enjoyed the party and everyone who is not (equal to) John and not (equal to) Mary, did not enjoy the party”. Exercise: Formalise these in FOL with equality.

Goranko

Axioms for the equality

Proposition

The following sentences, in an arbitrary first-order language L are logically valid:

Goranko

Axioms for the equality

Proposition

The following sentences, in an arbitrary first-order language L are logically valid: (Eq1) x = x

Goranko

Axioms for the equality

Proposition

The following sentences, in an arbitrary first-order language L are logically valid: (Eq1) x = x (Eq2) x = y → y = x

Goranko

Axioms for the equality

Proposition

The following sentences, in an arbitrary first-order language L are logically valid: (Eq1) x = x (Eq2) x = y → y = x (Eq3) x = y ∧ y = z → x = z.

Goranko

Axioms for the equality

Proposition

The following sentences, in an arbitrary first-order language L are logically valid: (Eq1) x = x (Eq2) x = y → y = x (Eq3) x = y ∧ y = z → x = z. (Eqf ) x1 = y1 ∧ ... ∧ xn = yn → f (x1, ..., xn) = f (y1, ..., yn) for n-ary functional symbol f in L.

Goranko

Axioms for the equality

Proposition

The following sentences, in an arbitrary first-order language L are logically valid: (Eq1) x = x (Eq2) x = y → y = x (Eq3) x = y ∧ y = z → x = z. (Eqf ) x1 = y1 ∧ ... ∧ xn = yn → f (x1, ..., xn) = f (y1, ..., yn) for n-ary functional symbol f in L. (Eqr) x1 = y1 ∧ ... ∧ xn = yn → (p(x1, ..., xn) → p(y1, ..., yn)) for n-ary predicate symbol p in L.

Goranko

Axioms for the equality

Proposition

The following sentences, in an arbitrary first-order language L are logically valid: (Eq1) x = x (Eq2) x = y → y = x (Eq3) x = y ∧ y = z → x = z. (Eqf ) x1 = y1 ∧ ... ∧ xn = yn → f (x1, ..., xn) = f (y1, ..., yn) for n-ary functional symbol f in L. (Eqr) x1 = y1 ∧ ... ∧ xn = yn → (p(x1, ..., xn) → p(y1, ..., yn)) for n-ary predicate symbol p in L. These axioms, however, cannot guarantee that the interpretation

• f the binary relational symbol = satisfying them is equality,

but only that it is a congruence in the given structure.

Goranko

Equivalent replacement of equals

The following theorem states an important generalisation of the properties of the equality on the previous slide, saying that equal terms can be equivalently replaced for each other in any formula.

Goranko

Equivalent replacement of equals

The following theorem states an important generalisation of the properties of the equality on the previous slide, saying that equal terms can be equivalently replaced for each other in any formula.

Theorem (Equivalent replacement)

For any formula A(x) and any terms s and t that are free for x in A, the following holds: | = s = t → (A[s/x] ↔ A[t/x]).

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first-order logic

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A.

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A. Equivalently, A ≡ B iff | = A ↔ B.

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A. Equivalently, A ≡ B iff | = A ↔ B. For example, any first-order instance of a pair of equivalent propositional formulae is a pair of logically equivalent formulae.

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A. Equivalently, A ≡ B iff | = A ↔ B. For example, any first-order instance of a pair of equivalent propositional formulae is a pair of logically equivalent formulae. Some basic properties of logical equivalence:

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A. Equivalently, A ≡ B iff | = A ↔ B. For example, any first-order instance of a pair of equivalent propositional formulae is a pair of logically equivalent formulae. Some basic properties of logical equivalence:

• 1. A ≡ A

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A. Equivalently, A ≡ B iff | = A ↔ B. For example, any first-order instance of a pair of equivalent propositional formulae is a pair of logically equivalent formulae. Some basic properties of logical equivalence:

• 1. A ≡ A
• 2. If A ≡ B then B ≡ A.

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A. Equivalently, A ≡ B iff | = A ↔ B. For example, any first-order instance of a pair of equivalent propositional formulae is a pair of logically equivalent formulae. Some basic properties of logical equivalence:

• 1. A ≡ A
• 2. If A ≡ B then B ≡ A.
• 3. If A ≡ B and B ≡ C then A ≡ C.

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A. Equivalently, A ≡ B iff | = A ↔ B. For example, any first-order instance of a pair of equivalent propositional formulae is a pair of logically equivalent formulae. Some basic properties of logical equivalence:

• 1. A ≡ A
• 2. If A ≡ B then B ≡ A.
• 3. If A ≡ B and B ≡ C then A ≡ C.
• 4. If A ≡ B then ¬A ≡ ¬B, ∀xA ≡ ∀xB, and ∃xA ≡ ∃xB.

Goranko

Logical equivalence in first order logic

Formulae A and B are logically equivalent, denoted A ≡ B, iff A | = B and B | = A. Equivalently, A ≡ B iff | = A ↔ B. For example, any first-order instance of a pair of equivalent propositional formulae is a pair of logically equivalent formulae. Some basic properties of logical equivalence:

• 1. A ≡ A
• 2. If A ≡ B then B ≡ A.
• 3. If A ≡ B and B ≡ C then A ≡ C.
• 4. If A ≡ B then ¬A ≡ ¬B, ∀xA ≡ ∀xB, and ∃xA ≡ ∃xB.
• 5. If A1 ≡ B1 and A2 ≡ B2 then A1 ◦ A2 ≡ B1 ◦ B2 where ◦ is any of

∧, ∨, → and ↔.

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.
• ∀xA ≡ ¬∃x¬A.

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.
• ∀xA ≡ ¬∃x¬A.
• ∃xA ≡ ¬∀x¬A.

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.
• ∀xA ≡ ¬∃x¬A.
• ∃xA ≡ ¬∀x¬A.
• ∃x∃yA ≡ ∃y∃xA.

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.
• ∀xA ≡ ¬∃x¬A.
• ∃xA ≡ ¬∀x¬A.
• ∃x∃yA ≡ ∃y∃xA.
• ∀x∀yA ≡ ∀y∀xA.

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.
• ∀xA ≡ ¬∃x¬A.
• ∃xA ≡ ¬∀x¬A.
• ∃x∃yA ≡ ∃y∃xA.
• ∀x∀yA ≡ ∀y∀xA.

NB: ∀x∃yA ≡ ∃y∀xA. Why?

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.
• ∀xA ≡ ¬∃x¬A.
• ∃xA ≡ ¬∀x¬A.
• ∃x∃yA ≡ ∃y∃xA.
• ∀x∀yA ≡ ∀y∀xA.

NB: ∀x∃yA ≡ ∃y∀xA. Why? For instance, “For every integer x there is an integer y such that x < y” is true

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.
• ∀xA ≡ ¬∃x¬A.
• ∃xA ≡ ¬∀x¬A.
• ∃x∃yA ≡ ∃y∃xA.
• ∀x∀yA ≡ ∀y∀xA.

NB: ∀x∃yA ≡ ∃y∀xA. Why? For instance, “For every integer x there is an integer y such that x < y” is true, but it does not imply “There is an integer y such that for every integer x, x < y.”

Goranko

Some logical equivalences involving quantifiers

• ¬∀xA ≡ ∃x¬A.
• ¬∃xA ≡ ∀x¬A.
• ∀xA ≡ ¬∃x¬A.
• ∃xA ≡ ¬∀x¬A.
• ∃x∃yA ≡ ∃y∃xA.
• ∀x∀yA ≡ ∀y∀xA.

NB: ∀x∃yA ≡ ∃y∀xA. Why? For instance, “For every integer x there is an integer y such that x < y” is true, but it does not imply “There is an integer y such that for every integer x, x < y.”, which is false.

Goranko

More logical equivalences and non-equivalences

• ∀x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ≡ ∀xP(x) ∧ ∀xQ(x)

Goranko

More logical equivalences and non-equivalences

• ∀x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ≡ ∀xP(x) ∧ ∀xQ(x)
• ∀x(P(x) ∨ Q(x)) ≡ ∀xP(x) ∨ ∀xQ(x)

Goranko

More logical equivalences and non-equivalences

• ∀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)

Goranko

More logical equivalences and non-equivalences

• ∀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)

Goranko

More logical equivalences and non-equivalences

• ∀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)
• ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ≡ ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x)

Goranko

More logical equivalences and non-equivalences

• ∀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)
• ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ≡ ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x)
• ∃x(P(x) → Q(x))

?

≡ ∃xP(x) → ∃xQ(x) (True or false?)

Goranko

More logical equivalences and non-equivalences

• ∀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)
• ∃x(P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ≡ ∃xP(x) ∧ ∃xQ(x)
• ∃x(P(x) → Q(x))

?

≡ ∃xP(x) → ∃xQ(x) (True or false?)

Goranko

Negation normal form

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to negation normal form

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to negation normal form

A FO formula is in negation normal form (NNF) if the only occurrences

• f negation are in front of atomic formulae.

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to negation normal form

A FO formula is in negation normal form (NNF) if the only occurrences

• f negation are in front of atomic formulae.

Using suitable equivalences, all negations in a first-order formula can be driven inwards, until they reach atomic formulae, thus transforming the formula to an equivalent one in NNF.

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to negation normal form

A FO formula is in negation normal form (NNF) if the only occurrences

• f negation are in front of atomic formulae.

Using suitable equivalences, all negations in a first-order formula can be driven inwards, until they reach atomic formulae, thus transforming the formula to an equivalent one in NNF. That can be used e.g. to understand negated natural language sentences with complex logical structure.

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to negation normal form

A FO formula is in negation normal form (NNF) if the only occurrences

• f negation are in front of atomic formulae.

Using suitable equivalences, all negations in a first-order formula can be driven inwards, until they reach atomic formulae, thus transforming the formula to an equivalent one in NNF. That can be used e.g. to understand negated natural language sentences with complex logical structure. For example, to negate “For every car, there is a driver who, if (s)he can start it, then (s)he can stop it.”

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to negation normal form

A FO formula is in negation normal form (NNF) if the only occurrences

• f negation are in front of atomic formulae.

Using suitable equivalences, all negations in a first-order formula can be driven inwards, until they reach atomic formulae, thus transforming the formula to an equivalent one in NNF. That can be used e.g. to understand negated natural language sentences with complex logical structure. For example, to negate “For every car, there is a driver who, if (s)he can start it, then (s)he can stop it.” we first translate it to first-order logic: ∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))).

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF continued

Now negating: ¬∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y))))

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF continued

Now negating: ¬∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x¬(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y))))

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF continued

Now negating: ¬∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x¬(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ¬∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y))))

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF continued

Now negating: ¬∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x¬(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ¬∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y¬(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y))))

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF continued

Now negating: ¬∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x¬(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ¬∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y¬(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(¬Driver(y) ∨ ¬(Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y))))

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF continued

Now negating: ¬∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x¬(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ¬∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y¬(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(¬Driver(y) ∨ ¬(Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(¬Driver(y) ∨ (Start(x, y) ∧ ¬Stop(x, y)))).

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF continued

Now negating: ¬∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x¬(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ¬∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y¬(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(¬Driver(y) ∨ ¬(Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) ≡ ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(¬Driver(y) ∨ (Start(x, y) ∧ ¬Stop(x, y)))). Since ¬A ∨ B ≡ A → B, the last formula is equivalent to ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(Driver(y) → (Start(x, y) ∧ ¬Stop(x, y)))).

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF completed

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF completed

Thus, the negation of the sentence “For every car, there is a driver who, if (s)he can start it, then (s)he can stop it.”

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF completed

Thus, the negation of the sentence “For every car, there is a driver who, if (s)he can start it, then (s)he can stop it.” formalized in first-order logic as ∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y))))

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF completed

Thus, the negation of the sentence “For every car, there is a driver who, if (s)he can start it, then (s)he can stop it.” formalized in first-order logic as ∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) is equivalent to ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(Driver(y) → (Start(x, y) ∧ ¬Stop(x, y))))

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF completed

Thus, the negation of the sentence “For every car, there is a driver who, if (s)he can start it, then (s)he can stop it.” formalized in first-order logic as ∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) is equivalent to ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(Driver(y) → (Start(x, y) ∧ ¬Stop(x, y)))) which, translated back to natural language, reads:

Goranko

Transforming first-order formulae to NNF completed

Thus, the negation of the sentence “For every car, there is a driver who, if (s)he can start it, then (s)he can stop it.” formalized in first-order logic as ∀x(Car(x) → ∃y(Driver(y) ∧ (Start(x, y) → Stop(x, y)))) is equivalent to ∃x(Car(x) ∧ ∀y(Driver(y) → (Start(x, y) ∧ ¬Stop(x, y)))) which, translated back to natural language, reads: There is a car such that every driver can start it and cannot stop it.

Goranko

Negating restricted quantifiers

¬∀x(P(x) → A) ≡ ∃x(P(x) ∧ ¬A)

Goranko

Negating restricted quantifiers

¬∀x(P(x) → A) ≡ ∃x(P(x) ∧ ¬A) ¬∃x(P(x) ∧ A) ≡ ∀x(P(x) → ¬A),

Goranko

Negating restricted quantifiers

¬∀x(P(x) → A) ≡ ∃x(P(x) ∧ ¬A) ¬∃x(P(x) ∧ A) ≡ ∀x(P(x) → ¬A), In particular, for any set X: ¬∀x ∈ X A(x) ≡ ∃x ∈ X ¬A(x)

Goranko

Negating restricted quantifiers

¬∀x(P(x) → A) ≡ ∃x(P(x) ∧ ¬A) ¬∃x(P(x) ∧ A) ≡ ∀x(P(x) → ¬A), In particular, for any set X: ¬∀x ∈ X A(x) ≡ ∃x ∈ X ¬A(x) ¬∃x ∈ X A(x) ≡ ∀x ∈ X ¬A(x)