Formal Logic: Quantifiers, Predicates, and Validity. CS 130 Discrete Structures

 Aileen McKenzie
 8 months ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Formal Logic: Quantifiers, Predicates, and Validity CS 130 Discrete Structures
2 Variables and Statements Variables: A variable is a symbol that stands for an individual in a collection or set. For example, the variable x may stand for one of the days. We may let x = Monday, x = Tuesday, etc. We normally use letters at the end of the alphabet as variables, such as x, y, z. A collection of objects is called the domain of objects. For the above example, the days in the week is the domain of variable x. CS 130 Discrete Structures 55
3 Quantifiers Propositional wffs have rather limited expressive power. E.g., For every x, x > 0. Quantifiers: Quantifiers are phrases that refer to given quantities, such as "for some" or "for all" or "for every", indicating how many objects have a certain property. Two kinds of quantifiers: Universal Quantifier: represented by, for all, for every, for each, or for any. Existential Quantifier: represented by, for some, there exists, there is a, or for at least one. CS 130 Discrete Structures 56
4 Predicates Predicate: It is the verbal statement which describes the property of a variable. Usually represented by the letter P, the notation P(x) is used to represent some unspecified property or predicate that x may have. P(x) = x has 30 days. P(April) = April has 30 days. What is the truth value of ( x)p(x) where x is all the months and P(x) = x has less than 32 days Combining the quantifier and the predicate, we get a complete statement of the form ( x)p(x) or ( x)p(x) The collection of objects is called the domain of interpretation, and it must contain at least one object. CS 130 Discrete Structures 57
5 Truth Values of the Expressions What is the truth value of ( x)p(x) in the following interpretations? P(x): x is yellow; the domain of interpretation is the collection of all flowers. P(x): x is a plant; the domain of interpretation is the collection of all flowers. P(x): x is either positive or negative; the domain of interpretation consists of the integers. Can you find one interpretation in which both ( x)p(x) is true and ( x)p(x) is false? Can you find one interpretation in which both ( x)p(x) is true and ( x)p(x) is false? CS 130 Discrete Structures 58
6 Unary, Binary,, Nary Predicates Predicates involving properties of a single variable: unary predicates Binary, ternary and nary predicates are also possible ( x) ( y)q(x,y) is a binary predicate. This expression reads as for every x there exists a y such that Q(x,y) Assume Q(x,y) is the property that x < y, what re the interpretations? ( x)( y) Q(x, y), ( y) ( x) Q(x, y), and ( x)( x) Q(x, x) We cannot collapse separate variables together into one without changing the nature of the expression Constants are also allowed in expressions, such as a, b, c, 0, 1, 2, etc. CS 130 Discrete Structures 59
7 Interpretation Formal definition: An interpretation for an expression involving predicates consists of the following: A collection of objects, called domain of interpretation, which must include at least one object. An assignment of a property of the objects in the domain to each predicate in the expression. An assignment of a particular object in the domain to each constant symbol in the expression. Predicate wffs can be built similar to propositional wffs using logical connectives with predicates and quantifiers. Must obey the rules of syntax to be considered a wff Examples of predicate wffs ( x)[p(x) Q(x)] ( x) (( y)[p(x,y) V Q(x,y)] R(x)) S(x,y) Λ R(x,y) CS 130 Discrete Structures 60
8 Scope of a Variable in an Expression The parentheses or brackets are used wisely to identify the scope of the variable. ( x) (( y)[p(x,y) V Q(x,y)] R(x)) Scope of ( y) is P(x,y) V Q(x,y) while the scope of ( x) is the entire expression ( x)s(x) V ( y)r(y) Scope of ( x) is S(x) while the scope of ( y) is R(y) ( x)[p(x,y) ( y) Q(x,y)] Scope of variable y is not defined for P(x,y) hence y is called a free variable. Such expressions might not have a truth value at all. P(x): x > 0; P(y)^ P(5), P(y) V P(5). What is the truth of the wff ( x)(a(x) Λ ( y)[b(x,y) C(y)]), where A(x) is x > 0, B(x, y) is x > y, C(y) is y 0, and x is the domain of positive integers and y is the domain of all integers? CS 130 Discrete Structures 61
9 Translation of Verbal Statements to Symbolic Form Using Intermediate Statements Every person is nice can be rephrased as For any thing, if it is a person, then it is nice. So, if P(x) is x is a person and Q(x) be x is nice, the statement can be symbolized as ( x)[p(x) Q(x)] Variations: All persons are nice or Each person is nice. There is a nice person can be rewritten as There exists something that is both a person and nice in symbolic form ( x)[p(x) Λ Q(x)] Variations: Some persons are nice or There are nice persons What would the following forms mean for the example above? ( x) [P(x) Λ Q(x)] is too strong ( x)[p(x) Q(x)] will be true if there are no persons in the world but that is not the case. So almost always, goes with Λ (conjunction) and goes with (implication) Can be confusing, so remember to frame the statement in different forms as possible CS 130 Discrete Structures 62
10 More On Translation The word only can be tricky depending on its presence in the statement: X loves only Y If X loves anything, then that thing is Y Only X loves Y If anything loves Y, then it is X X only loves Y If X does anything to Y, then it is love Example for forming symbolic forms from predicate symbols: D(x) is x is dog R(x) is x is a rabbit C(x,y) is x chases y All dogs chase all rabbits For anything, if it is a dog, then for any other thing, if it is a rabbit, then the dog chases it ( x)[d(x) ( y)(r(y) C(x,y))] Some dogs chase all rabbits There is something that is a dog and for any other thing, if that thing is a rabbit, then the dog chases it ( x)[d(x) Λ ( y)(r(y) C(x,y))] Only dogs chase rabbits For anything, if it is a rabbit then, if anything chases it, that thing is a dog ( y) [R(y) ( x) (C(x, y) D(x))] Or, for any two things, if one is a rabbit and the other chases it, then the other is a dog ( y) ( x)[r(y) Λ C(x,y) D(x)] CS 130 Discrete Structures 63
11 Negation of Statements A(x): Everything is beautiful Negation will be it is false that everything is beautiful, i.e. something is not beautiful In symbolic form, [( x)a(x)] ( x)[a(x)] Similarly, negation of Something is beautiful is Nothing is beautiful or Nothing is beautiful Hence, [( x)a(x)] ( x)[a(x)] What is the negation of Everybody loves somebody sometime Everybody hates somebody sometime Somebody loves everybody all the time Everybody hates everybody all the time Somebody hates everybody all the time CS 130 Discrete Structures 64
12 More Examples on Negation What is the negation of the following statements? Some pictures are old and faded. Every picture is not old or not faded. All people are tall and thin. Someone is short or fat. Some students eat only pizza. Every student eats something which is not a pizza Only students eat pizza. There is a nonstudent who eats pizza. CS 130 Discrete Structures 65
13 Class Exercises S(x): x is a student I(x): x is intelligent M(x): x likes music Write wffs than express the following statements: All students are intelligent. Some intelligent students like music. Everyone who likes music is a stupid student. Only intelligent students like music. For anything, if it is a student, then it is intelligent ( x)[s(x) I (x)] There is something that is intelligent and it is a student and it likes music ( x)[i(x) Λ S(x) Λ M(x)] For anything, if that thing likes music, then it is a student and it is not intelligent ( x)(m(x) S(x) Λ [I (x)] ) For any thing, if it likes music, then it is a student and it is intelligent ( x)(m(x) S(x) Λ I(x)) CS 130 Discrete Structures 66
14 Validity Analogous to a tautology of propositional logic Truth of a predicate wff depends on the interpretation A predicate wff is valid if it is true in all possible interpretations just like a propositional wff is true if it is true for all rows of the truth table A valid predicate wff is intrinsically true Truth Values Intrinsic truth Propositional Wffs True or false depends on the truth value of statement letters Tautology true for all truth values of its statements Predicate Wffs True, false or neither(if the wff has a free variable) Valid wff true for all interpretations Methodology Truth table to determine if it is a tautology No algorithm to determine validity CS 130 Discrete Structures 67
15 Validity Examples ( x)p(x) ( x)p(x) This is valid because if every object of the domain has a certain property, then there exists an object of the domain that has the same property. Therefore, whenever the antecedent is true, so is the consequent, and the implication is therefore true. ( x)p(x) P(a) Valid quite obvious since a is a member of the domain of X. ( x)p(x) ( x)p(x) Not valid since the property cannot be valid for all objects in the domain if it is valid for some objects of than domain. Can use a mathematical context to check as well. Say P(x) = x is even, then there exists an integer that is even but not every integer is even. How about ( x)[p(x) V Q(x)] ( x)p(x) V ( x)q(x) Invalid, can prove by mathematical context by taking P(x) = x is even, Q(x) = x is odd. In that case, the hypothesis is true but not the conclusion is false because it is not the case that every integer is even or that every integer is odd. CS 130 Discrete Structures 68
16 More Examples What s the validity? ( x)[p(x) ^ Q(x)] ( x)p(x) ^ ( x)q(x) P(x) [Q(x) P(x)] CS 130 Discrete Structures 69
17 Class Exercises What is the truth of the following wffs where the domain consists of integers: ( x)[l(x) O(x)] where O(x) is x is odd and L(x) is x < 10 ( y)( x)(x + y = 0) ( y)( x)(x 2 = y) ( x)[x < 0 ( y)(y > 0 Λ x + y = 0)] Using predicate symbols and appropriate quantifiers, write the symbolic form of the following English statement: D(x) is x is a day ; M is Monday ; T is Tuesday. S(x) is x is sunny ; R(x) is x is rainy. Some days are sunny and rainy It is always a sunny day only if it is a rainy day It rained both Monday and Tuesday Every day that is rainy is not sunny CS 130 Discrete Structures 70
18 Answers D(x) is x is a day ; M is Monday ; T is Tuesday. S(x) is x is sunny ; R(x) is x is rainy. Some days are sunny and rainy ( x) S(x) Λ R(x) Λ D(x) It is always a sunny day only if it is a rainy day ( x) [S(x) Λ D(x) R(x) Λ D(x)] It rained both Monday and Tuesday R(M) Λ R(T) Every day that is rainy is not sunny ( x) [R(X) Λ D(x) S (x)] CS 130 Discrete Structures 71
19 CS 130 Discrete Structures Formal Logic  Predicate Logic
20 Valid Argument (P 1 Λ P 2 Λ... Λ P n ) Q where the wffs are built from predicates and quantifiers as well as logical connectives and grouping symbols no equivalent of the truth table exists to prove validity the meaning and the structure of the quantifiers and predicates determines the interpretation and the validity of the arguments Predicate logic: 4 more new derivation rules to build a proof sequence leading from the hypothesis to the conclusion The equivalence rules and inference rules still applies Why predicate logic? More rules? A valid argument for predicate logic need not be a tautology to be valid Example: ( x)p(x) ( x)p(x) Hence: we need to learn 4 new rules CS 130 Discrete Structures 73
21 Steps To Prove the Validity Basic approach to prove arguments: Strip off quantifiers Manipulate the unquantified wffs Reinsert the quantifiers Four new inference rules Two rules to strip the quantifiers Two rules to reinsert the quantifiers CS 130 Discrete Structures 74
22 Inference Rules in Predicate Logic From Can Derive Name / Abbreviation ( x)p(x) ( x)p(x) P(t) where t is a variable or constant symbol P(t) where t is a variable or constant symbol not previously used in a proof sequence Universal Instantiation ui Existential Instantiation ei P(x) ( x)p(x) Universal Generalization ug P(x) or P(a) ( x)p(x) Existential Generalization eg Restrictions on Use If t is a variable, it must not fall within the scope of a quantifier for t Must be the first rule used that introduces t P(x) has not been deduced from any hypotheses in which x is a free variable nor has P(x) been deduced by ei from any wff in which x is a free variable To go from P(a) to ( x)p(x), x must not appear in P(a) CS 130 Discrete Structures 75
23 Universal Instantiation (1) This rule says if P is true for every element of the domain, we can name such an element by an arbitrary variable name like x, y, or z, or we can specify a particular constant in the domain, and P is still true for all these things. Example: All flowers are plants. Sunflower is a flower. Therefore, sunflower is a plant. P(x) is x is a plant a is a constant symbol (Sunflower) F(x) is x is a flower The argument is ( x)[f(x) P(x)] Λ F(a) P(a) The proof sequence is as follows: 1. ( x)[f(x) P(x)] hyp 2. F(a) hyp 3. F(a) P(a) 1, ui 4. P(a) 2, 3, mp CS 130 Discrete Structures 76
24 Universal Instantiation (2) Restriction: ( x)p(x) derives P(t), t must not fall within the scope of a quantifier for t Without this restriction: a hypothesis of the form ( x) ( y) P(x, y) could lead to the wff ( y) P(y, y) this is invalid considering when P(x, y) means y > x CS 130 Discrete Structures 77
25 Example Prove the argument: ( x)[p(x) Q(x)] Λ [Q(y)] [P(y)] Proof sequence: 1. ( x)[p(x) Q(x)] hyp 2. [Q(y)] hyp 3. P(y) Q(y) 1, ui 4. [P(y)] 2, 3, mt CS 130 Discrete Structures 78
26 Existential Instantiation It says that from ( x)p(x) we can derive P(a), P(b) or P(c), provided that these are new constant symbols. The following proof sequence is legitimate: 1. ( x)[p(x) > Q(x)] hyp 2. ( y)p(y) hyp 3. P(a) 2, ei 4. P(a)>Q(a) 1, ui 5. Q(a) 3, 4, mp However, step 3 and 4 cannot be reversed So, look at your hypotheses, if you plan to use ei on any of them, do it first. CS 130 Discrete Structures 79
27 Universal Generalization P(x) derives ( x)p(x) when x is absolutely arbitrary Example: ( x)[p(x) Q(x)] Λ ( x)p(x) ( x)q(x) Proof sequence: 1. ( x)[p(x) Q(x)] hyp 2. ( x)p(x) hyp 3. P(x) Q(x) 1, ui 4. P(x) 2, ui : no restriction on UI about reusing a name 5. Q(x) 3, 4, mp 6. ( x)q(x) 5, ug Note: step 6 is legitimate since x is not a free variable in any hypothesis nor was ei used before CS 130 Discrete Structures 80
28 Two Restrictions on UG Free variable in hypothesis P(x) hyp ( x)p(x) 1, incorrect ug; x is free in the hypothesis Deduced from ei, and free variable ( x)( y)q(x, y) hyp ( y)q(x, y) 1, ui Q(x, a) 2, ei ( x)q(x, a) 3, incorrect ug; Q(x, a) is deduced by ei from the wff in step 2, in which x is free Example: Q(x, y): x + y = 0 CS 130 Discrete Structures 81
29 Example Prove the argument ( x)[p(x) Λ Q(x)] ( x)p(x) Λ ( x)q(x) Proof sequence: 1. ( x)[p(x) Λ Q(x)] hyp 2. P(x) Λ Q(x) 1, ui 3. P(x) 2, sim 4. Q(x) 2, sim 5. ( x)p(x) 3, ug 6. ( x)q(x) 4, ug 7. ( x)p(x) Λ ( x)q(x) 5, 6, con CS 130 Discrete Structures 82
30 Existential Generalization It allows insertion of an. From P(x) or P(a) we can derive ( x)p(x). Restriction: x must not appear in P(a). Prove the argument ( x)p(x) ( x)p(x) Proof sequence: 1. ( x)p(x) hyp 2. P(x) 1, ui 3. ( x)p(x) 2, eg Without the restriction: from P(a, y) one could derive ( y) P(y, y) incorrect: since y already appeared in the wff in which eg was applied why? P(x, y): y>x CS 130 Discrete Structures 83
31 More Examples Are the following proof sequence legitimate? 1. ( x)p(x) V ( x)q(x) hyp 2. P(a) V Q(a) 1, ei 1. ( x)( y)q(x, y) hyp 2. ( x)q(x, a) 1, ei CS 130 Discrete Structures 84
32 More Examples Prove the argument ( y)[p(x) Q(x,y)] [P(x) ( y)q(x,y)] Using the deduction method, we can derive ( y)[p(x) Q(x,y)] Λ P(x) ( y)q(x,y) Proof sequence: 1. ( y)[p(x) Q(x,y)] hyp 2. P(x) hyp 3. P(x) Q(x,y) 1, ui 4. Q(x,y) 2, 3, mp 5. ( y)q(x,y) 4, ug CS 130 Discrete Structures 85
33 Temporary Hypotheses An extension to the deduction method: we can insert a temporary hypothesis into a proof If some wff T is introduced into the proof of sequence as a temporary hypothesis, and eventually a wff W is deduced from T and other hypotheses, then the wff T > W has been deduced from the other hypotheses and can be inserted in the proof sequence CS 130 Discrete Structures 86
34 Example of Temporary Hypothesis Prove the argument [P(x) ( y)q(x,y)] ( y)[p(x) Q(x,y)] Proof sequence: 1. P(x) ( y)q(x,y) hyp. 2. P(x) temporary hypothesis (T) 3. ( y)q(x,y) 1, 2, mp 4. Q(x,y) 3, ui (W) 5. P(x) Q(x,y) temp. hyp discharged (T>W) 6. ( y)[p(x) Q(x,y)] 5, ug Universal quantifier can slide over subwffs that do not contain the quantified variable Same for existential quantifier CS 130 Discrete Structures 87
35 More Example Prove the argument ( x)[(b(x) V C(x)) A(x)] ( x)[b(x) A(x)] Proof sequence: 1. ( x)[(b(x) V C(x)) A(x)] hyp 2. (B(x) V C(x)) A(x) 1, ui 3. B(x) temp. hyp. 4. B(x) V C(x) 3, add 5. A(x) 2, 4, mp 6. B(x) A(x) temp. hyp. Discharged 7. ( x)[b(x) A(x)] 6, ug CS 130 Discrete Structures 88
36 More: [( x)a(x)] ( x)[a(x)] [( x)a(x)] ( x)[a(x)] Proof sequence: 1. [( x)a(x)] hyp. 2. A(x) temp. hyp. 3. ( x)a(x) 2, eg 4. A(x) ( x)a(x) temp. hyp. discharged 5. [A(x)] 1, 4, mt 6. ( x)[a(x)] 5, ug ( x)[a(x)] [( x)a(x)] Proof sequence: 1. ( x)[a(x)] hyp. 2. ( x)a(x) temp. hyp. 3. A(a) 2, ei 4. [A(a)] 1, ui 5. [( x)[a(x)] ] 3, 4, inc 6. ( x)a(x) [( x)[a(x)] ] temp. hyp. discharged 7. [(( x)[a(x)] ) ] 1, dn 8. [( x)a(x)] 6, 7, mt inc: inconsistency in exercise 27 in section 1.2 CS 130 Discrete Structures 89
37 More Examples Is the following wff a valid argument? Prove or disprove. ( x)[p(x) v Q(x)] ( x)p(x) v ( x)q(x) ( x)p(x) Λ ( x)q(x) ( x)[p(x) Λ Q(x)] ( x)p(x) Λ [( x)(p(x) Λ Q(x))] ( x)[q(x)] First, consider whether the wff seems valid if yes, try to find a proof sequence for it otherwise, try to find an interpretation in which it is not true CS 130 Discrete Structures 90
38 Verbal Arguments Every crocodile is bigger than every alligator. Sam is a crocodile. But there is a snake, and Sam isn t bigger than that snake. Therefore, something is not an alligator. Use C(x), A(x), B(x,y), s, S(x) ( x) ( y)[c(x) Λ A(y) B(x,y)] Λ C(s) Λ ( x)(s(x) Λ [B(s,x)] ) ( x)[a(x)] CS 130 Discrete Structures 91
39 Practice All rock music is loud music. Some rock music exists; therefore some loud music exists. Use R(x) and L(x). CS 130 Discrete Structures 92
40 Review of Chapter 1 Be able to: construct truth tables for compound wffs recognize tautologies and contradictions translate compound statements into symbolic notations negate a statement apply derivation rules for propositional logic use propositional logic to prove the validity of a verbal argument determine the truth value of a predicate wff in a given interpretation translate statements into predicate wffs apply derivation rules for predicate logic use predicate logic to prove the validity of a verbal argument CS 130 Discrete Structures 93
CS 214 Introduction to Discrete Structures. Chapter 1 Formal Logic. Mikel D. Petty, Ph.D.
CS 214 Introduction to Discrete Structures Chapter 1 Formal Logic Mikel D. Petty, Ph.D. Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis CS 214 Formal Logic 1.2 Chapter sections and objectives 1.1 Statements,
More information! Predicates! Variables! Quantifiers. ! Universal Quantifier! Existential Quantifier. ! Negating Quantifiers. ! De Morgan s Laws for Quantifiers
Sec$on Summary (K. Rosen notes for Ch. 1.4, 1.5 corrected and extended by A.Borgida)! Predicates! Variables! Quantifiers! Universal Quantifier! Existential Quantifier! Negating Quantifiers! De Morgan s
More informationFirst order Logic ( Predicate Logic) and Methods of Proof
First order Logic ( Predicate Logic) and Methods of Proof 1 Outline Introduction Terminology: Propositional functions; arguments; arity; universe of discourse Quantifiers Definition; using, mixing, negating
More informationPredicate Logic. CSE 191, Class Note 02: Predicate Logic Computer Sci & Eng Dept SUNY Buffalo
Predicate Logic CSE 191, Class Note 02: Predicate Logic Computer Sci & Eng Dept SUNY Buffalo c Xin He (University at Buffalo) CSE 191 Discrete Structures 1 / 22 Outline 1 From Proposition to Predicate
More informationCSCE 222 Discrete Structures for Computing. Predicate Logic. Dr. Hyunyoung Lee. !!!!! Based on slides by Andreas Klappenecker
CSCE 222 Discrete Structures for Computing Predicate Logic Dr. Hyunyoung Lee Based on slides by Andreas Klappenecker 1 Predicates A function P from a set D to the set Prop of propositions is called a predicate.
More informationLogical Operators. Conjunction Disjunction Negation Exclusive Or Implication Biconditional
Logical Operators Conjunction Disjunction Negation Exclusive Or Implication Biconditional 1 Statement meaning p q p implies q if p, then q if p, q when p, q whenever p, q q if p q when p q whenever p p
More informationUniversity of Ottawa CSI 2101 Midterm Test Instructor: Lucia Moura. February 9, :30 pm Duration: 1:50 hs. Closed book, no calculators
University of Ottawa CSI 2101 Midterm Test Instructor: Lucia Moura February 9, 2010 11:30 pm Duration: 1:50 hs Closed book, no calculators Last name: First name: Student number: There are 5 questions and
More informationProseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2013 Ling 720 First Order (Predicate) Logic: Syntax and Natural Deduction 1
First Order (Predicate) Logic: Syntax and Natural Deduction 1 A Reminder of Our Plot I wish to provide some historical and intellectual context to the formal tools that logicians developed to study the
More informationECOM Discrete Mathematics
ECOM 2311 Discrete Mathematics Chapter # 1 : The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Fall, 2013/2014 ECOM 2311 Discrete Mathematics  Ch.1 Dr. Musbah Shaat 1 / 85 Outline 1 Propositional Logic 2 Propositional
More informationProposi'onal Logic Not Enough
Section 1.4 Proposi'onal Logic Not Enough If we have: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal Compare to: If it is snowing, then I will study discrete math. It is snowing. I will study
More informationPredicate Logic combines the distinctive features of syllogistic and propositional logic.
Predicate Logic combines the distinctive features of syllogistic and propositional logic. The fundamental component in predicate logic is the predicate, which is always symbolized with upper case letters.
More informationIntroduction to firstorder logic:
Introduction to firstorder logic: Firstorder structures and languages. Terms and formulae in firstorder logic. Interpretations, truth, validity, and satisfaction. Valentin Goranko DTU Informatics September
More informationLogic and Modelling. Introduction to Predicate Logic. Jörg Endrullis. VU University Amsterdam
Logic and Modelling Introduction to Predicate Logic Jörg Endrullis VU University Amsterdam Predicate Logic In propositional logic there are: propositional variables p, q, r,... that can be T or F In predicate
More informationRules Build Arguments Rules Building Arguments
Section 1.6 1 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements Building Arguments for Quantified
More informationIntroduction to Predicate Logic Part 1. Professor Anita Wasilewska Lecture Notes (1)
Introduction to Predicate Logic Part 1 Professor Anita Wasilewska Lecture Notes (1) Introduction Lecture Notes (1) and (2) provide an OVERVIEW of a standard intuitive formalization and introduction to
More informationPredicate Logic. 1 Predicate Logic Symbolization
1 Predicate Logic Symbolization innovation of predicate logic: analysis of simple statements into two parts: the subject and the predicate. E.g. 1: John is a giant. subject = John predicate =... is a giant
More informationPredicate Calculus lecture 1
Predicate Calculus lecture 1 Section 1.3 Limitation of Propositional Logic Consider the following reasoning All cats have tails Gouchi is a cat Therefore, Gouchi has tail. MSU/CSE 260 Fall 2009 1 MSU/CSE
More informationPropositional Logic Not Enough
Section 1.4 Propositional Logic Not Enough If we have: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Does it follow that Socrates is mortal? Can t be represented in propositional logic. Need a language that talks
More informationTHE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF GAZA ENGINEERING FACULTY DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING DISCRETE MATHMATICS DISCUSSION ECOM Eng. Huda M.
THE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF GAZA ENGINEERING FACULTY DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING DISCRETE MATHMATICS DISCUSSION ECOM 2011 Eng. Huda M. Dawoud September, 2015 Section 1: Propositional Logic 2. Which
More informationComputational Logic. Recall of FirstOrder Logic. Damiano Zanardini
Computational Logic Recall of FirstOrder Logic Damiano Zanardini UPM European Master in Computational Logic (EMCL) School of Computer Science Technical University of Madrid damiano@fi.upm.es Academic
More informationLogic and Propositional Calculus
CHAPTER 4 Logic and Propositional Calculus 4.1 INTRODUCTION Many algorithms and proofs use logical expressions such as: IF p THEN q or If p 1 AND p 2, THEN q 1 OR q 2 Therefore it is necessary to know
More informationExercises. Exercise Sheet 1: Propositional Logic
B Exercises Exercise Sheet 1: Propositional Logic 1. Let p stand for the proposition I bought a lottery ticket and q for I won the jackpot. Express the following as natural English sentences: (a) p (b)
More information1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers
1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers INTRODUCTION Statements x>3, x=y+3 and x + y=z are not propositions, if the variables are not specified. In this section we discuss the ways of producing propositions from
More informationPredicate Calculus. Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson
Predicate Calculus Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson Outline 1. Motivation 1. Variables, quantifiers and predicates 2. Syntax 1. Terms and formulas 2. Quantifiers, scope
More informationA Little Deductive Logic
A Little Deductive Logic In propositional or sentential deductive logic, we begin by specifying that we will use capital letters (like A, B, C, D, and so on) to stand in for sentences, and we assume that
More informationLogic. Propositional Logic: Syntax
Logic Propositional Logic: Syntax Logic is a tool for formalizing reasoning. There are lots of different logics: probabilistic logic: for reasoning about probability temporal logic: for reasoning about
More informationCPSC 121: Models of Computation
CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 6 Rewriting Predicate Logic Statements Based on slides by Patrice Belleville and Steve Wolfman Coming Up Preclass quiz #7 is due Wednesday October 25th at 9:00 pm.
More informationLogic: The Big Picture
Logic: The Big Picture A typical logic is described in terms of syntax: what are the legitimate formulas semantics: under what circumstances is a formula true proof theory/ axiomatization: rules for proving
More informationUnit I LOGIC AND PROOFS. B. Thilaka Applied Mathematics
Unit I LOGIC AND PROOFS B. Thilaka Applied Mathematics UNIT I LOGIC AND PROOFS Propositional Logic Propositional equivalences Predicates and Quantifiers Nested Quantifiers Rules of inference Introduction
More informationCS100: DISCRETE STRUCTURES. Lecture 5: Logic (Ch1)
CS100: DISCREE SRUCURES Lecture 5: Logic (Ch1) Lecture Overview 2 Statement Logical Connectives Conjunction Disjunction Propositions Conditional Bioconditional Converse Inverse Contrapositive Laws of
More informationProof. Theorems. Theorems. Example. Example. Example. Part 4. The Big Bang Theory
Proof Theorems Part 4 The Big Bang Theory Theorems A theorem is a statement we intend to prove using existing known facts (called axioms or lemmas) Used extensively in all mathematical proofs which should
More informationIntroduction to Metalogic
Philosophy 135 Spring 2008 Tony Martin Introduction to Metalogic 1 The semantics of sentential logic. The language L of sentential logic. Symbols of L: Remarks: (i) sentence letters p 0, p 1, p 2,... (ii)
More informationCS70 is a course about on Discrete Mathematics for Computer Scientists. The purpose of the course is to teach you about:
CS 70 Discrete Mathematics for CS Fall 2006 Papadimitriou & Vazirani Lecture 1 Course Outline CS70 is a course about on Discrete Mathematics for Computer Scientists. The purpose of the course is to teach
More informationReadings: Conjecture. Theorem. Rosen Section 1.5
Readings: Conjecture Theorem Lemma Lemma Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 : Step n1 Step n a rule of inference an axiom a rule of inference Rosen Section 1.5 Provide justification of the steps used to show that a
More informationSection Summary. Predicate logic Quantifiers. Negating Quantifiers. Translating English to Logic. Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier
Section 1.4 Section Summary Predicate logic Quantifiers Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier Negating Quantifiers De Morgan s Laws for Quantifiers Translating English to Logic Propositional Logic
More informationChapter 1: Formal Logic
Chapter 1: Formal Logic Dr. Fang (Daisy) Tang ftang@cpp.edu www.cpp.edu/~ftang/ CS 130 Discrete Structures Logic: The Foundation of Reasoning Definition: the foundation for the organized, careful method
More informationCHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC
CHAPTER 2. FIRST ORDER LOGIC 1. Introduction First order logic is a much richer system than sentential logic. Its interpretations include the usual structures of mathematics, and its sentences enable us
More informationICS141: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science I
ICS141: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science I Dept. Information & Computer Sci., Originals slides by Dr. Baek and Dr. Still, adapted by J. Stelovsky Based on slides Dr. M. P. Frank and Dr. J.L. Gross
More informationPredicates and Quantifiers. CS 231 Dianna Xu
Predicates and Quantifiers CS 231 Dianna Xu 1 Predicates Consider P(x) = x < 5 P(x) has no truth values (x is not given a value) P(1) is true 1< 5 is true P(10) is false 10 < 5 is false Thus, P(x) will
More informationSymbolising Quantified Arguments
Symbolising Quantified Arguments 1. (i) Symbolise the following argument, given the universe of discourse is U = set of all animals. Animals are either male or female. Not all Cats are male, Therefore,
More informationDISCRETE MATHEMATICS BA202
TOPIC 1 BASIC LOGIC This topic deals with propositional logic, logical connectives and truth tables and validity. Predicate logic, universal and existential quantification are discussed 1.1 PROPOSITION
More informationMACM 101 Discrete Mathematics I. Exercises on Predicates and Quantifiers. Due: Tuesday, October 13th (at the beginning of the class)
MACM 101 Discrete Mathematics I Exercises on Predicates and Quantifiers. Due: Tuesday, October 13th (at the beginning of the class) Reminder: the work you submit must be your own. Any collaboration and
More information3 The language of proof
3 The language of proof After working through this section, you should be able to: (a) understand what is asserted by various types of mathematical statements, in particular implications and equivalences;
More informationDiscrete Structures for Computer Science
Discrete Structures for Computer Science William Garrison bill@cs.pitt.edu 6311 Sennott Square Lecture #6: Rules of Inference Based on materials developed by Dr. Adam Lee Today s topics n Rules of inference
More informationInterpretations of PL (Model Theory)
Interpretations of PL (Model Theory) 1. Once again, observe that I ve presented topics in a slightly different order from how I presented them in sentential logic. With sentential logic I discussed syntax
More informationLogic Part I: Classical Logic and Its Semantics
Logic Part I: Classical Logic and Its Semantics Max Schäfer Formosan Summer School on Logic, Language, and Computation 2007 July 2, 2007 1 / 51 Principles of Classical Logic classical logic seeks to model
More informationAI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic
AI Principles, Semester 2, Week 2, Lecture 5 Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic Propositional logic Logical connectives Rules for wffs Truth tables for the connectives Using Truth Tables to evaluate
More informationHOW TO CREATE A PROOF. Writing proofs is typically not a straightforward, algorithmic process such as calculating
HOW TO CREATE A PROOF ALLAN YASHINSKI Abstract We discuss how to structure a proof based on the statement being proved Writing proofs is typically not a straightforward, algorithmic process such as calculating
More informationLecture 4. Predicate logic
Lecture 4 Predicate logic Instructor: Kangil Kim (CSE) Email: kikim01@konkuk.ac.kr Tel. : 024503493 Room : New Milenium Bldg. 1103 Lab : New Engineering Bldg. 1202 All slides are based on CS441 Discrete
More informationMA103 STATEMENTS, PROOF, LOGIC
MA103 STATEMENTS, PROOF, LOGIC Abstract Mathematics is about making precise mathematical statements and establishing, by proof or disproof, whether these statements are true or false. We start by looking
More informationWUCT121. Discrete Mathematics. Logic. Tutorial Exercises
WUCT11 Discrete Mathematics Logic Tutorial Exercises 1 Logic Predicate Logic 3 Proofs 4 Set Theory 5 Relations and Functions WUCT11 Logic Tutorial Exercises 1 Section 1: Logic Question1 For each of the
More informationDiscrete Mathematics
Discrete Mathematics ChihWei Yi Dept. of Computer Science National Chiao Tung University March 9, 2009 Overview of ( 1.51.7, ~2 hours) Methods of mathematical argument (i.e., proof methods) can be formalized
More informationTHE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS
CHAPTER 2 THE LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. SECTION 2.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Logical Form
More informationCITS2211: Test One. Student Number: 1. Use a truth table to prove or disprove the following statement.
CITS2211: Test One Name: Student Number: 1. Use a truth table to prove or disprove the following statement. ((P _ Q) ^ R)) is logically equivalent to ( P ) ^ ( Q ^ R) P Q R P _ Q (P _ Q) ^ R LHS P Q R
More informationA statement is a sentence that is definitely either true or false but not both.
5 Logic In this part of the course we consider logic. Logic is used in many places in computer science including digital circuit design, relational databases, automata theory and computability, and artificial
More informationLecture Notes 1 Basic Concepts of Mathematics MATH 352
Lecture Notes 1 Basic Concepts of Mathematics MATH 352 Ivan Avramidi New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Socorro, NM 87801 June 3, 2004 Author: Ivan Avramidi; File: absmath.tex; Date: June 11,
More informationPropositional Logic Review
Propositional Logic Review UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane The task of describing a logical system comes in three parts: Grammar Describing what counts as a formula Semantics Defining
More informationPropositions and Proofs
Propositions and Proofs Gert Smolka, Saarland University April 25, 2018 Proposition are logical statements whose truth or falsity can be established with proofs. Coq s type theory provides us with a language
More informationIntroduction. Predicates and Quantifiers. Discrete Mathematics Andrei Bulatov
Introduction Predicates and Quantifiers Discrete Mathematics Andrei Bulatov Discrete Mathematics Predicates and Quantifiers 72 What Propositional Logic Cannot Do We saw that some declarative sentences
More informationPredicate Logic Quantifier Rules
Predicate Logic Quantifier Rules CS251 at CCUT, Spring 2017 David Lu May 8 th, 2017 Contents 1. Universal Instantiation (UI) 2. Existential Generalization (EG) 3. Universal Generalization (UG) 4. Existential
More informationThe Predicate Calculus
Math 3040 Spring 2011 The Predicate Calculus Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Some examples 1 3. General elements of sets. 2 4. Variables and constants 2 5. Expressions 3 6. Predicates 4 7. Logical operations
More informationChapter 3. The Logic of Quantified Statements
Chapter 3. The Logic of Quantified Statements 3.1. Predicates and Quantified Statements I Predicate in grammar Predicate refers to the part of a sentence that gives information about the subject. Example:
More informationComputer Science 280 Spring 2002 Homework 2 Solutions by Omar Nayeem
Computer Science 280 Spring 2002 Homework 2 Solutions by Omar Nayeem Part A 1. (a) Some dog does not have his day. (b) Some action has no equal and opposite reaction. (c) Some golfer will never be eated
More informationBoolean Algebra and Proof. Notes. Proving Propositions. Propositional Equivalences. Notes. Notes. Notes. Notes. March 5, 2012
March 5, 2012 Webwork Homework. The handout on Logic is Chapter 4 from Mary Attenborough s book Mathematics for Electrical Engineering and Computing. Proving Propositions We combine basic propositions
More informationDISCRETE MATH: LECTURE Chapter 3.3 Statements with Multiple Quantifiers If you want to establish the truth of a statement of the form
DISCRETE MATH: LECTURE 5 DR. DANIEL FREEMAN 1. Chapter 3.3 Statements with Multiple Quantifiers If you want to establish the truth of a statement of the form x D, y E such that P (x, y) your challenge
More informationTopic 1: Propositional logic
Topic 1: Propositional logic Guy McCusker 1 1 University of Bath Logic! This lecture is about the simplest kind of mathematical logic: propositional calculus. We discuss propositions, which are statements
More informationSection 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements
Section 2.1: Introduction to the Logic of Quantified Statements In the previous chapter, we studied a branch of logic called propositional logic or propositional calculus. Loosely speaking, propositional
More informationINTRODUCTION TO LOGIC
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC 6 Natural Deduction Volker Halbach There s nothing you can t prove if your outlook is only sufficiently limited. Dorothy L. Sayers http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/lectures/ undergraduate_questionnaire
More informationTopics in Logic and Proofs
Chapter 2 Topics in Logic and Proofs Some mathematical statements carry a logical value of being true or false, while some do not. For example, the statement 4 + 5 = 9 is true, whereas the statement 2
More informationTHE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS. Predicates and Quantified Statements I. Predicates and Quantified Statements I CHAPTER 3 SECTION 3.
CHAPTER 3 THE LOGIC OF QUANTIFIED STATEMENTS SECTION 3.1 Predicates and Quantified Statements I Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Copyright Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Predicates
More information2010 Part IA Formal Logic, Model Answers
2010 Part IA Formal Logic, Model Answers 1 Attempt all parts of this question (a) Carefully define the notions of (i) a truthfunction A function is a map which assigns exactly one value to each given
More informationCS 2336 Discrete Mathematics
CS 2336 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3 Logic: Rules of Inference 1 Outline Mathematical Argument Rules of Inference 2 Argument In mathematics, an argument is a sequence of propositions (called premises)
More informationLogic for Computer Scientists
Logic for Computer Scientists Pascal Hitzler http://www.pascalhitzler.de CS 499/699 Lecture, Winter Quarter 2011 Wright State University, Dayton, OH, U.S.A. [final version: 03/10/2011] Contents 1 Propositional
More informationCHAPTER 1  LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS
CHAPTER 1  LOGIC OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS 1.1  Logical Form and Logical Equivalence Definition. A statement or proposition is a sentence that is either true or false, but not both. ex. 1 + 2 = 3 IS a statement
More informationDiscrete Structures for Computer Science
Discrete Structures for Computer Science William Garrison bill@cs.pitt.edu 6311 Sennott Square Lecture #4: Predicates and Quantifiers Based on materials developed by Dr. Adam Lee Topics n Predicates n
More informationDiscrete Structures CRN Test 3 Version 1 CMSC 2123 Autumn 2013
. Print your name on your scantron in the space labeled NAME. 2. Print CMSC 223 in the space labeled SUBJECT. 3. Print the date 22203, in the space labeled DATE. 4. Print your CRN, 786, in the space
More informationDiscrete Mathematics
Department of Mathematics National Cheng Kung University 2008 2.4: The use of Quantifiers Definition (2.5) A declarative sentence is an open statement if 1) it contains one or more variables, and 1 ) quantifier:
More informationDiscrete Mathematical Structures. Chapter 1 The Foundation: Logic
Discrete Mathematical Structures Chapter 1 he oundation: Logic 1 Lecture Overview 1.1 Propositional Logic 1.2 Propositional Equivalences 1.3 Quantifiers l l l l l Statement Logical Connectives Conjunction
More informationFoundations of Mathematics Worksheet 2
Foundations of Mathematics Worksheet 2 L. Pedro Poitevin June 24, 2007 1. What are the atomic truth assignments on {a 1,..., a n } that satisfy: (a) The proposition p = ((a 1 a 2 ) (a 2 a 3 ) (a n 1 a
More informationDeduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 8 Identity and Functions
Deduction by Daniel Bonevac Chapter 8 Identity and Functions Introduction 1 This chapter introduces two important extensions of Q that make it quite a bit more powerful. The first is the mathematical relation
More informationIntelligent Agents. First Order Logic. Ute Schmid. Cognitive Systems, Applied Computer Science, Bamberg University. last change: 19.
Intelligent Agents First Order Logic Ute Schmid Cognitive Systems, Applied Computer Science, Bamberg University last change: 19. Mai 2015 U. Schmid (CogSys) Intelligent Agents last change: 19. Mai 2015
More informationCOMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR
COMP219: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 19: Logic for KR 1 Overview Last time Expert Systems and Ontologies Today Logic as a knowledge representation scheme Propositional Logic Syntax Semantics Proof
More informationRelational Predicates and Overlapping Quantifiers, 8.6. I. Introducing Relational Predicates
Philosophy 109, Modern Logic, Queens College Russell Marcus, Instructor email: philosophy@thatmarcusfamily.org website: http://philosophy.thatmarcusfamily.org Office phone: (718) 9975287 Relational Predicates
More informationSection 3.1: Direct Proof and Counterexample 1
Section 3.1: Direct Proof and Counterexample 1 In this chapter, we introduce the notion of proof in mathematics. A mathematical proof is valid logical argument in mathematics which shows that a given conclusion
More informationLecture 4: Proposition, Connectives and Truth Tables
Discrete Mathematics (II) Spring 2017 Lecture 4: Proposition, Connectives and Truth Tables Lecturer: Yi Li 1 Overview In last lecture, we give a brief introduction to mathematical logic and then redefine
More informationMAT 243 Test 1 SOLUTIONS, FORM A
t MAT 243 Test 1 SOLUTIONS, FORM A 1. [10 points] Rewrite the statement below in positive form (i.e., so that all negation symbols immediately precede a predicate). ( x IR)( y IR)((T (x, y) Q(x, y)) R(x,
More informationChapter 1. Logic and Proof
Chapter 1. Logic and Proof 1.1 Remark: A little over 100 years ago, it was found that some mathematical proofs contained paradoxes, and these paradoxes could be used to prove statements that were known
More informationWhy Proofs? Proof Techniques. Theorems. Other True Things. Proper Proof Technique. How To Construct A Proof. By Chuck Cusack
Proof Techniques By Chuck Cusack Why Proofs? Writing roofs is not most student s favorite activity. To make matters worse, most students do not understand why it is imortant to rove things. Here are just
More information1 Introduction to Predicate Resolution
1 Introduction to Predicate Resolution The resolution proof system for Predicate Logic operates, as in propositional case on sets of clauses and uses a resolution rule as the only rule of inference. The
More informationBits and Bit Operations. Today s topics
oday s topics Bits and Bit Operations opic #2 Bits Boolean algebra preview Propositional equivalences Predicate logic Reading: Sections 1.21.4 Slides taken from Prof. Michael rank A bit is a binary nary
More informationLogic of Sentences (Propositional Logic) is interested only in true or false statements; does not go inside.
You are a mathematician if 1.1 Overview you say to a car dealer, I ll take the red car or the blue one, but then you feel the need to add, but not both.  1. Logic and Mathematical Notation (not in the
More informationFORMAL PROOFS DONU ARAPURA
FORMAL PROOFS DONU ARAPURA This is a supplement for M385 on formal proofs in propositional logic. Rather than following the presentation of Rubin, I want to use a slightly different set of rules which
More information22c:145 Artificial Intelligence. FirstOrder Logic. Readings: Chapter 8 of Russell & Norvig.
22c:145 Artificial Intelligence FirstOrder Logic Readings: Chapter 8 of Russell & Norvig. Einstein s Puzzle in Logic We used propositinal variables to specify everything: x 1 = house #1 is red ; x 2 =
More informationChapter 1: The Logic of Compound Statements. January 7, 2008
Chapter 1: The Logic of Compound Statements January 7, 2008 Outline 1 1.1 Logical Form and Logical Equivalence 2 1.2 Conditional Statements 3 1.3 Valid and Invalid Arguments Central notion of deductive
More informationCITS2211 Discrete Structures Proofs
CITS2211 Discrete Structures Proofs Unit coordinator: Rachel CardellOliver August 13, 2017 Highlights 1 Arguments vs Proofs. 2 Proof strategies 3 Famous proofs Reading Chapter 1: What is a proof? Mathematics
More informationPredicate logic. G. Carl Evans. Summer University of Illinois. Propositional Logic Review Predicate logic Predicate Logic Examples
G. Carl Evans University of Illinois Summer 2013 Propositional logic Propositional Logic Review AND, OR, T/F, implies, etc Equivalence and truth tables Manipulating propositions Implication Propositional
More informationFormal Logic. Critical Thinking
ormal Logic Critical hinking Recap: ormal Logic If I win the lottery, then I am poor. I win the lottery. Hence, I am poor. his argument has the following abstract structure or form: If P then Q. P. Hence,
More informationChapter 2. Mathematical Reasoning. 2.1 Mathematical Models
Contents Mathematical Reasoning 3.1 Mathematical Models........................... 3. Mathematical Proof............................ 4..1 Structure of Proofs........................ 4.. Direct Method..........................
More informationChapter 3. Cartesian Products and Relations. 3.1 Cartesian Products
Chapter 3 Cartesian Products and Relations The material in this chapter is the first real encounter with abstraction. Relations are very general thing they are a special type of subset. After introducing
More informationTo every formula scheme there corresponds a property of R. This relationship helps one to understand the logic being studied.
Modal Logic (2) There appeared to be a correspondence between the validity of Φ Φ and the property that the accessibility relation R is reflexive. The connection between them is that both relied on the
More information