logic
play

Logic Charles L Dodgson 1832 - 1898 It s so easy even - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 05, 2023 •274 likes •428 views

IIT Bombay :: Autumn 2020 :: CS 207 :: Discrete Structures :: Manoj Prabhakaran Logic Charles L Dodgson 1832 - 1898 It s so easy even Quantifiers computers can do it! Predicates & Propositions Winged(x) Flies(x) Pink(x) x

  1. IIT Bombay :: Autumn 2020 :: CS 207 :: Discrete Structures :: Manoj Prabhakaran Logic Charles L Dodgson 
 1832 - 1898 It’ s so easy even Quantifiers computers can do it!

  2. Predicates & Propositions Winged(x) Flies(x) Pink(x) x Alice FALSE FALSE FALSE Jabberwock TRUE TRUE FALSE Flamingo TRUE TRUE TRUE A predicate is a column in this table A proposition like Winged(Alice) refers to a single cell. Can build more complex propositions using propositional calculus (formulas) Next: Propositions involving quantifiers.

  3. Quantified Propositions (First-Order) Predicate Calculus Winged(x) Flies(x) Pink(x) x Alice FALSE FALSE FALSE Jabberwock TRUE TRUE FALSE ∈ AIW Flamingo TRUE TRUE TRUE All characters in AIW are winged. (False!) ∀ x Winged(x) For every character x in AIW, Winged(x) holds Some character in AIW is winged. (True) ∃ x Winged(x) There exists a character x in AIW, such that Winged(x) holds

  4. Quantified Propositions (First-Order) Predicate Calculus Winged(x) Flies(x) Pink(x) x Alice FALSE FALSE FALSE Jabberwock TRUE TRUE FALSE Flamingo TRUE TRUE TRUE ∀ x Winged(x) Quantifiers: To what “extent” does a predicate evaluate to TRUE in the domain of discourse Universal quantifier, ∀ ∃ x Winged(x) Existential quantifier, ∃

  5. Quantified Propositions (First-Order) Predicate Calculus Winged(x) Flies(x) Pink(x) x Alice FALSE FALSE FALSE Jabberwock TRUE TRUE FALSE Flamingo TRUE TRUE TRUE Could write ∀ x Winged(x) as: Winged(Alice) ∧ Winged(J’wock) ∧ Winged(Flamingo) And ∃ x Winged(x) as: Winged(Alice) ∨ Winged(J’wock) ∨ Winged(Flamingo) But need to list the entire domain (works only if finite)

  6. Examples Winged(x) → Winged(x) Flies(x) Pink(x) Winged(x) ↔ Flies(x) Pink(x) → Flies(x) x ¬Flies(x) TRUE Alice FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE Jabberwock TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE Flamingo TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE is True ∀ x Winged(x) ↔ Flies(x) ∃ x Winged(x) → ¬Flies(x) is True ∀ x Pink(x) → Flies(x) is True

  7. Quantified Propositions (First-Order) Predicate Calculus Winged(x) Flies(x) Pink(x) ¬Winged(x) x Alice FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE Jabberwock TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE Flamingo TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE ∀ x Winged(x) is False Not everyone is winged Same as saying, there is someone who is not winged ¬( W(a) ∧ W(j) ∧ W(f) ) i.e., ∃ x ¬Winged(x) is True ≡ ¬ ( ∀ x W(x) ) ≡ ∃ x ¬W(x) ¬W(a) ∨ ¬W(j) ∨ ¬W(f)

  8. Predicates, again A predicate can be defined over any number of elements from the domain e.g., Likes(x,y): “x likes y” x,y Likes(x,y) Alice, Alice TRUE Alice, Jabberwock FALSE Alice, Flamingo TRUE Jabberwock, Alice FALSE Jabberwock, Jabberwock TRUE Jabberwock, Flamingo FALSE Flamingo, Alice FALSE Flamingo, Jabberwock FALSE Flamingo, Flamingo TRUE

  9. Two quantifiers x,y Likes(x,y) Alice, Alice TRUE Alice, Jabberwock FALSE Alice, Flamingo TRUE Jabberwock, Alice FALSE Jabberwock, Jabberwock TRUE Jabberwock, Flamingo FALSE Flamingo, Alice FALSE Flamingo, Jabberwock FALSE Flamingo, Flamingo TRUE And we can quantify all the variables of a predicate e.g. ∀ x,y Likes(x,y) Everyone likes everyone False!

  10. Two quantifiers x,y Likes(x,y) Alice, Alice TRUE Alice, Jabberwock FALSE Alice, Flamingo TRUE Jabberwock, Alice FALSE Jabberwock, Jabberwock TRUE Jabberwock, Flamingo FALSE Flamingo, Alice FALSE Flamingo, Jabberwock FALSE Flamingo, Flamingo TRUE ∀ x ∃ y Likes(x,y) Order of Everyone likes someone (True) quantifiers is ∃ y ∀ x Likes(x,y) important! Someone is liked by everyone (False)

  11. Two quantifiers ∃ y Likes(x,y) x y Likes(x,y) i.e., LikesSomeone(x) Alice TRUE Alice TRUE Jabberwock FALSE Flamingo TRUE Alice FALSE Jabberwock TRUE Jabberwock TRUE Flamingo FALSE Alice FALSE Flamingo Jabberwock FALSE TRUE Flamingo TRUE ∀ x ∃ y Likes(x,y) Everyone likes someone ∀ x LikesSomeone(x) True

  12. Moving the Quantifiers ∀ x ∀ y P(x,y) ≡ ∀ y ∀ x P(x,y) for all pairs (x,y), P(x,y) holds ∃ x ∃ y P(x,y) ≡ ∃ y ∃ x P(x,y) for some pair (x,y), P(x,y) holds Below R is a proposition not involving x ∀ x P(x) ∨ R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∨ R R evaluates to True or False (indep of x) Scope of x extends to When R is True, both equivalent (to True) the end: ∀ x (P(x) ∨ R) Also, when R is False, both equivalent i.e., if domain is {a 1 ,…,a N } Hence both equivalent (P(a 1 ) ∨ R) ∧ … ∧ (P(a N ) ∨ R)

  13. Moving the Quantifiers ∀ x ∀ y P(x,y) ≡ ∀ y ∀ x P(x,y) for all pairs (x,y), P(x,y) holds ∃ x ∃ y P(x,y) ≡ ∃ y ∃ x P(x,y) for some pair (x,y), P(x,y) holds Below R is a proposition not involving x ∀ x P(x) ∨ R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∨ R ∃ x P(x) ∨ R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∨ R ∀ x P(x) ∧ R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∧ R ∃ x P(x) ∧ R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∧ R ∀ x R → P(x) ≡ R → ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∃ x R → P(x) ≡ R → ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∀ x P(x) → R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x)) → R ∃ x P(x) → R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x)) → R ∀ x ¬P(x) ∨ R ≡ ( ∀ x ¬P(x)) ∨ R ≡ ¬ ( ∃ x P(x)) ∨ R

  14. Moving the Quantifiers ∀ x ∀ y P(x,y) ≡ ∀ y ∀ x P(x,y) for all pairs (x,y), P(x,y) holds ∃ x ∃ y P(x,y) ≡ ∃ y ∃ x P(x,y) for some pair (x,y), P(x,y) holds Below R is a proposition not involving x ∀ x P(x) ∨ R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∨ R ∃ x P(x) ∨ R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∨ R ∀ x P(x) ∧ R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∧ R ∃ x P(x) ∧ R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∧ R ∀ x R → P(x) ≡ R → ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∃ x R → P(x) ≡ R → ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∀ x P(x) → R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x)) → R ∃ x P(x) → R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x)) → R ( ∀ x P(x)) ∧ ( ∀ x Q(x)) ≡ ∀ x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) P Q ( ∃ x P(x)) ∨ ( ∃ x Q(x)) ≡ ∃ x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) ( ∀ x P(x)) ∨ ( ∀ x Q(x)) ≡ ( ∀ x P(x)) ⋁ ( ∀ y Q(y)) ≡ ∀ x ( P(x) ⋁ ( ∀ y Q(y)) ) ≡ ∀ x ( ∀ y (P(x) ⋁ Q(y)) ) ≡ ∀ x ∀ y (P(x) ⋁ Q(y))

  15. Moving the Quantifiers ∀ x ∀ y P(x,y) ≡ ∀ y ∀ x P(x,y) for all pairs (x,y), P(x,y) holds ∃ x ∃ y P(x,y) ≡ ∃ y ∃ x P(x,y) for some pair (x,y), P(x,y) holds Below R is a proposition not involving x ∀ x P(x) ∨ R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∨ R ∃ x P(x) ∨ R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∨ R ∀ x P(x) ∧ R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∧ R ∃ x P(x) ∧ R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∧ R ∀ x R → P(x) ≡ R → ( ∀ x P(x) ) ∃ x R → P(x) ≡ R → ( ∃ x P(x) ) ∀ x P(x) → R ≡ ( ∃ x P(x)) → R ∃ x P(x) → R ≡ ( ∀ x P(x)) → R ( ∀ x P(x)) ∧ ( ∀ x Q(x)) ≡ ∀ x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) ( ∃ x P(x)) ∨ ( ∃ x Q(x)) ≡ ∃ x (P(x) ∨ Q(x)) ( ∀ x P(x)) ∨ ( ∀ x Q(x)) ≡ ∀ x ∀ y P(x) ⋁ Q(y) ( ∃ x P(x)) ⋀ ( ∃ x Q(x)) ≡ ∃ x ∃ y P(x) ⋀ Q(y) ¬( ∃ x P(x)) ≡ ∀ x ¬P(x) ¬( ∀ x P(x)) ≡ ∃ x ¬P(x) ∄ x P(x)

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

Markov Logic Markov Logic Probability First-Order Logic Propositional Logic Markov Logic

Markov Logic Markov Logic Probability First-Order Logic Propositional Logic Markov Logic

Putting the Pieces Together Markov Logic Markov Logic Probability First-Order Logic Propositional Logic Markov Logic Definition A Markov Logic Network (MLN) is a set of A logical KB is a set of hard constraints pairs (F, w) where on

350 views • 6 slides
Undecidability in Logic 16-0 Logic Logic is intended to help us study

Undecidability in Logic 16-0 Logic Logic is intended to help us study

Griffith University 3130CIT Theory of Computation (Based on slides by Harald Sndergaard of The University of Melbourne) Undecidability in Logic 16-0 Logic Logic is intended to help us study arguments such as

539 views • 11 slides
Logic Modeling Outline What is a logic model? How to use a logic model How to build a

Logic Modeling Outline What is a logic model? How to use a logic model How to build a

An Introduction to Logic Modeling Outline What is a logic model? How to use a logic model How to build a logic model What is a Logic Model? Brief definition: A logic model is a graphic representation of a program showing

630 views • 61 slides
Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits Prof. Hakim Weatherspoon CS

Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits Prof. Hakim Weatherspoon CS

Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits Prof. Hakim Weatherspoon CS 3410 Computer Science Cornell University [Weatherspoon, Bala, Bracy, and Sirer] Goals for Today From Switches to Logic Gates to Logic

469 views • 43 slides
Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits Prof. Hakim Weatherspoon CS

Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits Prof. Hakim Weatherspoon CS

Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits Prof. Hakim Weatherspoon CS 3410 Computer Science Cornell University [Weatherspoon, Bala, Bracy, and Sirer] Goals for Today From Switches to Logic Gates to Logic

1.04k views • 77 slides
05Predicate Logic CS 5209: Foundation in Logic and AI Martin Henz and Aquinas Hobor February

05Predicate Logic CS 5209: Foundation in Logic and AI Martin Henz and Aquinas Hobor February

Predicate Logic: Motivation, Syntax, Proof Theory Semantics of Predicate Logic Soundness and Completeness of Predicate Logic Undecidability of Predicate Logic 05Predicate Logic CS 5209: Foundation in Logic and AI Martin Henz and Aquinas

1.36k views • 69 slides
Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits CS 3410: Computer System

Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits CS 3410: Computer System

Gates and Logic: From Transistors to Logic Gates and Logic Circuits CS 3410: Computer System Organization and Programming [K. Bala, A. Bracy, E. Sirer, and H. Weatherspoon] Goals for Today From Switches to Logic Gates to Logic Circuits

434 views • 25 slides
Logic as a Tool Chapter 3: Understanding First-order Logic 3.2 Semantics of first-order logic

Logic as a Tool Chapter 3: Understanding First-order Logic 3.2 Semantics of first-order logic

Logic as a Tool Chapter 3: Understanding First-order Logic 3.2 Semantics of first-order logic Valentin Goranko Stockholm University October 2016 Goranko Translation from first-order logic to natural language: examples in the structure of real

994 views • 20 slides
Hoare logic separation logic. We looked at the concepts separation logic is based on, the new

Hoare logic separation logic. We looked at the concepts separation logic is based on, the new

Introduction In the previous lecture, we saw how reasoning about pointers in Hoare logic was problematic, which motivated introducing Hoare logic separation logic. We looked at the concepts separation logic is based on, the new assertions that

396 views • 14 slides
Logic? Propositional Logic, Truth Tables (Rosen, Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) TOPICS

Logic? Propositional Logic, Truth Tables (Rosen, Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) TOPICS

Logic? Propositional Logic, Truth Tables (Rosen, Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) TOPICS Propositional Logic Logical Operations Equivalences CS 160, Summer Semester 2016 2 Why logic? To reason about programs, What is logic? e.g. Are

424 views • 9 slides
review CS 540 Yingyu Liang Propositional logic Logic If the rules of the world are

review CS 540 Yingyu Liang Propositional logic Logic If the rules of the world are

Logic and machine learning review CS 540 Yingyu Liang Propositional logic Logic If the rules of the world are presented formally, then a decision maker can use logical reasoning to make rational decisions. Several types of logic:

919 views • 35 slides
First-order logic Whereas propositional logic assumes world contains facts , first-order logic

First-order logic Whereas propositional logic assumes world contains facts , first-order logic

First-order logic Whereas propositional logic assumes world contains facts , first-order logic (like natural language) assumes the world contains First-order logic Objects: people, houses, numbers, theories, Ronald McDonald, colors, baseball

245 views • 6 slides
The logic of learning: The logic of learning: logic and knowledge representation logic and

The logic of learning: The logic of learning: logic and knowledge representation logic and

The logic of learning: The logic of learning: logic and knowledge representation logic and knowledge representation in machine learning in machine learning Peter A. Flach Department of Computer Science University of Bristol

771 views • 59 slides
Proofs: Logic in Action Using Logic Logic is used to deduce results in any (mathematically

Proofs: Logic in Action Using Logic Logic is used to deduce results in any (mathematically

Euclid (300 BC) Proofs: Logic in Action Using Logic Logic is used to deduce results in any (mathematically defined) system Typically a human endeavour (but can be automated if the system is relatively simple) Proof is a means to convince

325 views • 8 slides
Introduction to Temporal Logic Mehdi Dastani BBL-521 M.M.Dastani@uu.nl Modal Logic Modal logic

Introduction to Temporal Logic Mehdi Dastani BBL-521 M.M.Dastani@uu.nl Modal Logic Modal logic

Introduction to Temporal Logic Mehdi Dastani BBL-521 M.M.Dastani@uu.nl Modal Logic Modal logic is developed to model various concepts and phenomena. Logic of and (necessity / possibility) Various flavours: epistemic /

547 views • 18 slides
First order logic (Ch. 8) Review: Propositional logic Propositional logic builds sentences that

First order logic (Ch. 8) Review: Propositional logic Propositional logic builds sentences that

First order logic (Ch. 8) Review: Propositional logic Propositional logic builds sentences that relate various symbols with true or false Each symbol is simply a unique identifier, but you cannot generalize between them While this is

399 views • 29 slides
HOL 1 C ONTENT Intro & motivation, getting started with Isabelle Foundations &

HOL 1 C ONTENT Intro & motivation, getting started with Isabelle Foundations &

NICTA Advanced Course Theorem Proving Principles, Techniques, Applications HOL 1 C ONTENT Intro & motivation, getting started with Isabelle Foundations & Principles Lambda Calculus Higher Order Logic, natural deduction

995 views • 95 slides
MAP INTERNATIONAL SPRING SCH L ON FORMALIZATION OF MATHEMATICS 2012 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS, FRANCE /

MAP INTERNATIONAL SPRING SCH L ON FORMALIZATION OF MATHEMATICS 2012 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS, FRANCE /

SSReflect - Logics & Basic tactics Laurence Rideau 12 March MAP INTERNATIONAL SPRING SCH L ON FORMALIZATION OF MATHEMATICS 2012 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS, FRANCE / 12-16 MARCH SSR Tactics Structure SSReflect Reminder (SSR = Small Scale

1.14k views • 96 slides
Logical Structures in Natural Language: First order Logic (FoL) Raffaella Bernardi Universit` a

Logical Structures in Natural Language: First order Logic (FoL) Raffaella Bernardi Universit` a

Logical Structures in Natural Language: First order Logic (FoL) Raffaella Bernardi Universit` a degli Studi di Trento e-mail: bernardi@disi.unitn.it Contents First Last Prev Next Contents 1 How far can we go with PL? . . . . . . .

494 views • 27 slides
Existential quantification in games and logic (towards a combinatorics of proofs) Paul-Andr e

Existential quantification in games and logic (towards a combinatorics of proofs) Paul-Andr e

Existential quantification in games and logic (towards a combinatorics of proofs) Paul-Andr e Melli` es CNRS, Universit e Paris 7 Computational Interpretations of Proofs 29-30 November 2007 1 Two totems inherited from history

600 views • 58 slides
second order propositional logic type theory week 08 2006 04 03 0 the course 1st order

second order propositional logic type theory week 08 2006 04 03 0 the course 1st order

second order propositional logic type theory week 08 2006 04 03 0 the course 1st order propositional logic simple type theory 1st order predicate logic type theory with dependent types P 2nd order propositional logic

568 views • 35 slides
Foundations of AI 9 . Predicate Logic Syntax and Semantics, Normal Forms, Herbrand Expansion,

Foundations of AI 9 . Predicate Logic Syntax and Semantics, Normal Forms, Herbrand Expansion,

Foundations of AI 9 . Predicate Logic Syntax and Semantics, Normal Forms, Herbrand Expansion, Resolution W olfram Burgard and Bernhard Nebel 09/ 1 Contents Motivation Syntax and Semantics Normal Forms Reduction to

1.01k views • 57 slides
CMSC 430 Introduction to Compilers Spring 2016 Data Flow Analysis Data Flow Analysis A

CMSC 430 Introduction to Compilers Spring 2016 Data Flow Analysis Data Flow Analysis A

CMSC 430 Introduction to Compilers Spring 2016 Data Flow Analysis Data Flow Analysis A framework for proving facts about programs Reasons about lots of little facts Little or no interaction between facts Works best on

502 views • 35 slides
Future of Gas Entry Regime Initial Modelling Results Colm Gormin & John Melvin Gas

Future of Gas Entry Regime Initial Modelling Results Colm Gormin & John Melvin Gas

Future of Gas Entry Regime Initial Modelling Results Colm Gormin & John Melvin Gas Commercial Agenda Time Item -Why are we reforming? 10:30-11:00 Introduction to Gas Entry -The European context Reform -Work to date

580 views • 24 slides

More recommend