A Strong Relevant Logic Model of Epistemic Processes in Scientific Discovery
|
|
- Collin Rodgers
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 A Strong Relevant Logic Model of Epistemic Processes in Scientific Discovery (Extended Abstract) Jingde Cheng Department of Computer Science and Communication Engineering Kyushu University, Hakozaki, Fukuoka, , Japan Abstract. This paper presents some significant fundamental observations and/or assumptions on scientific discovery processes and their automation, shows why classical mathematical logic, its various classical conservative extensions, and traditional (weak) relevant logics cannot satisfactorily underlie epistemic processes in scientific discovery, and presents a strong relevant logic model of epistemic processes in scientific discovery. 1 Introduction Any scientific discovery must include an epistemic process to gain knowledge of or to ascertain the existence of some empirical and/or logical conditionals previously unknown or unrecognized. As an applied and/or technical science, Computer Science should provide scientists with some epistemic representation, description, reasoning, and computing tools for supporting the scientists to suppose, verify, and then ultimately discover new conditionals in their research fields. However, no programming paradigm in the current computer science focuses its attention on this issue. In order to provide scientists with a computational method to program their epistemic processes in scientific discovery, we are establishing a novel programming paradigm, named Epistemic Programming, which regards conditionals as the subject of computing, takes primary epistemic operations as basic operations of computing, and regards epistemic processes as the subject of programming. Modeling epistemic processes in scientific discovery satisfactorily is an indispensable step to automating scientific discovery processes. This paper presents some significant fundamental observations and/or assumptions, which underlie our research direction, on scientific discovery processes and their automation, shows why classical mathematical logic, its various classical conservative extensions, and traditional (weak) relevant logics cannot satisfactorily underlie epistemic processes in scientific discovery, presents a strong relevant logic model of epistemic processes in scientific discovery as the logical foundation to underlie epistemic programming.
2 490 2 Fundamental Observations and/or Assumptions First of all, we present here some significant fundamental observations and/or assumptions, which underlie our research direction, on scientific discovery processes and their automation as follows: (1) Specific knowledge is the power of a scientist: Any scientist who made a scientific discovery must have worked in some particular scientific field and more specifically on some problem in a particular domain within the field. There is no universal scientist who can make scientific discoveries in every field. (2) Any scientific discovery has an ordered epistemic process: Any scientific discovery must have, among other things, a process that consists of a number of ordered epistemic activities that may be contributed by many scientists in a long duration. Any scientific discovery is nether an event occurs in a moment nor an accumulation of disorderly and disorganized inquisitions. (3) New conditionals are epistemic goals of any scientific discovery: Any scientific discovery process must include an epistemic process to gain knowledge of or to ascertain the existence of some empirical and/or logical conditionals previously unknown or unrecognized. Finding some new data or some new fact is just an initial step in a scientific discovery but not the scientific discovery itself. (4) Scientific reasoning is indispensable to any scientific discovery: Any discovery must be unknown or unrecognized before the completion of discovery process. Reasoning is the sole way to draw new conclusions from some premises that are known facts and/or assumed hypothesis. There is no scientific discovery that does not invoke scientific reasoning. (5) Scientific reasoning must be justified based on some sound logical criterion: The most intrinsic difference between discovery and proof is that discovery has no explicitly defined target as its goal. Since any epistemic process in any scientific discovery has no explicitly defined target, the sole criterion the epistemic process must act according to is to reason correct conclusions from the premises. It is logic that can underlie valid scientific reasoning. (6) Scientific reasoning must be relevant: For any correct argument in scientific reasoning as well as our everyday reasoning, the premises of the argument must be in some way relevant to the conclusion of that argument, and vice versa. A reasoning including some irrelevant arguments cannot be said to be valid in general. (7) Scientific reasoning must be ampliative: A scientific reasoning is intrinsically different from a scientific proving in that the purpose of reasoning is to find out some facts and conditionals previously unknown or unrecognized, while the purpose of proving is to find out a justification for some fact previously known or assumed. A reasoning in any scientific discovery must be ampliative such that it enlarges or increases the reasoning agent s knowledge in some way. (8) Scientific reasoning must be paracomplete: Any scientific theory may be incomplete in many ways, i.e., for some sentence A neither it nor its negation can be true in the theory. Therefore, a reasoning in any scientific discovery must be paracomplete such that it does not reason out a sentence even if it cannot reason out the negation of that sentence.
3 491 (9) Scientific reasoning must be paraconsistent: Any scientific theory may be inconsistent in many ways, i.e., it may directly or indirectly include some contradiction such that for some sentence A both it and its negation can be true together in the theory. Therefore, a reasoning in any scientific discovery must be paraconsistent such that from a contradiction it does not reason out an arbitrary sentence. (10) Epistemic activities in any scientific discovery process are distinguishable: Epistemic activities in any scientific discovery process can be distinguished from other activities, e.g., experimental activities, as explicitly described thoughts. (11) Normal scientific discovery processes are possible: Any scientific discovery process can be described and modeled in a normal way, and therefore, it can be simulated by computer programs automatically. (12) Specific knowledge is the power of a program: Even if scientific discovery processes can be simulated by computer programs automatically in general, a particular computational process which can certainly perform a particular scientific discovery must take sufficient knowledge specific to the subject under investigation into account. There is no generally organized order of scientific discovery processes that can be applied to every problem in every field. (13) Any automated scientific discovery process must be valid: Any automated process of scientific discovery must be able to assure us of the truth, in the sense of not only fact but also conditional, of the final result produced by the process if it starts from an epistemic state where all facts, hypotheses, and conditionals are regarded to be true and/or valid. (14) Any automated scientific discovery process need an autonomous forward reasoning mechanism: Any backward and/or refutation deduction system cannot serve as an autonomous reasoning mechanism to form and/or discover some completely new things. What we need in automating scientific discovery is an autonomous forward reasoning system. 3 The Fundamental Logic to Underlie Epistemic Processes Based on the fundamental observations and/or assumptions presented in Section 2, the fundamental logic that can underlie epistemic processes has to satisfy some essential requirements. First, as a criterion for validity of reasoning, the logic underlying scientific reasoning in epistemic processes must take the relevance between the premises and conclusion of an argument into account. Second, the logic must be able to underlie paracomplete and paraconsistent reasoning; in particular, the principle of Explosion that everything follows from a contradiction cannot be accepted by the logic as a valid principle. Third, for any set of facts and conditionals, which are considered as true and/or valid, given as premises of a reasoning based on the logic, any conditional reasoned out as a conclusion of the reasoning must be true and/or valid in the sense of conditional. Almost all the logic-based works on modeling epistemic processes are based on classical mathematical logic (CML for short) or its some classical conservative extensions [6], keeping as much as fundamental characteristics of CML. However, CML
4 492 cannot satisfy all the above three essential requirements for the fundamental logic. First, because of the classical account of validity that an argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for all its premises to be true while its conclusion is false, a reasoning based on CML may be irrelevant, i.e., the conclusion reasoned out from the premises of that reasoning may be irrelevant at all, in the sense of meaning, to the premises. Second, CML is of no use for reasoning with inconsistency, since the principle of Explosion is a fundamental characteristic of CML. Third, as a result of representing the notion of conditional, which is intrinsically intensional, by the extensional notion of material implication, CML has a great number of implicational paradoxes as its logical axioms or theorems which cannot be regarded as entailments from the viewpoint of scientific reasoning as well as our everyday reasoning. Traditional (weak) relevant logics [1, 2] have rejected those implicational paradoxes in CML, but still have some conjunction-implicational paradoxes and disjunctionimplicational paradoxes [4] as their logical axioms or theorems, which cannot be regarded as entailments from the viewpoint of scientific reasoning as well as our everyday reasoning. In order to establish a satisfactory logic calculus of conditional to underlie relevant reasoning, the present author has proposed some strong relevant logics and shown their applications [4, 5]. Since the strong relevant logics are free not only implicational paradoxes but also conjunction-implicational and disjunction-implicational paradoxes, we can use them to model epistemic processes in scientific discovery without those problems in modeling epistemic processes by CML, various classical conservative extensions of CML, and traditional (weak) relevant logics. 4 A Strong Relevant Logic Model of Epistemic Processes For a given L-theory with premises P, denoted by T L (P), and any formula A of L, A is said to be explicitly accepted by T L (P) if and only if A P and A P; A is said to be explicitly rejected by T L (P) if and only if A P and A P; A is said to be explicitly inconsistent with T L (P) if and only if both A P and A P; A is said to be explicitly independent of T L (P) and is called a explicitly possible new premise for T L (P) if and only if both A P and A P. For any given formal theory T L (P) and any formula A P, A is said to be implicitly accepted by T L (P), if and only if A T L (P) and A T L (P); A is said to be implicitly rejected by T L (P) if and only if A T L (P) and A T L (P); A is said to be implicitly inconsistent with T L (P) if and only if both A T L (P) and A T L (P); A is said to be implicitly independent of T L (P) and is called a implicitly possible new premise for T L (P) if and only if both A T L (P) and A T L (P). Let K F(EcQ), where F(EcQ) is the set of formulas of predicate relevant logic EcQ, be a set of sentences to represent known knowledge and/or current beliefs of an agent. For any A T EcQ (K) K where T EcQ (K) K, an epistemic deduction of A from K, denoted by K d+a, by the agent is defined as K d+a = df K {A}; for any A T EcQ (K), an explicitly epistemic expansion of K by A, denoted by K e+a, by the agent is defined as K e+a = df K {A}; for any A K, an explicitly epistemic contraction of K by A, de-
5 493 noted by K A, by the agent is defined as K A = df K {A}; for any A T EcQ (K), an implicitly epistemic expansion of K by A, denoted by T EcQ (K) e+a, is defined as T EcQ (K) e+a = df T EcQ (K N) where N F(EcQ) such that A K N but A T EcQ (K N); for any A T EcQ (K), an implicitly epistemic contraction of K by A, denoted by T EcQ (K) A, is defined as T EcQ (K) A = df T EcQ (K N) where N F(EcQ) such that A T EcQ (K N); a simple induction by the agent is an epistemic expansion such that for x(a) K and x(a) T EcQ (K), do K e+ x(a) ; a simple abduction by the agent is an epistemic expansion such that for B K, (A B) K, and A T EcQ (K), do K e+a. The basic properties of these epistemic operations can be found in [5]. An epistemic process of an agent is a sequence K 0, o 1, K 1, o 2, K 2,..., K n 1, o n, K n where K i F(EcQ) (n i 0), called an epistemic state of the epistemic process, is a set of sentences to represent known knowledge and/or current beliefs of the agent, and o i+1 (n>i 0), is any of primary epistemic operations, and K i+1 is the result of applying o i+1 to K i. An epistemic process K 0, o 1, K 1,..., o n, K n is said to be consistent if and only if T EcQ (K i ) is consistent for any i (n i 0); an epistemic process K 0, o 1, K 1,..., o n, K n is said to be inconsistent if and only if T EcQ (K i ) is consistent but T EcQ (K j ) is inconsistent for all j>i; an epistemic process K 0, o 1, K 1,..., o n, K n is said to be paraconsistent if and only if T EcQ (K i ) is inconsistent but T EcQ (K j ) is consistent for some j>i; an epistemic process K 0, o 1, K 1,..., o n, K n is said to be monotonic if K i K j for any i<j; an epistemic process K 0, o 1, K 1,..., o n, K n is said to be nonmonotonic if K j K i for some i<j. Any epistemic process K 0, o 1, K 1,..., o n, K n including an epistemic contraction must be nonmonotonic. The idea to model epistemic processes in scientific discovery using relevant logic rather than classical mathematical logic was first proposed in 1994 by the present author [3]. Other work by the author on this direction and a comparison with related work can be found in [5]. References 1. Anderson, A. R., Belnap Jr., N. D.: Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Vol. I. Princeton University Press (1975) 2. Anderson, A. R., Belnap Jr., N. D., Dunn, J. M.: Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Vol. II. Princeton University Press (1992) 3. Cheng, J.: A Relevant Logic Approach to Modeling Epistemic Processes in Scientific Discovery. Proc. 3rd Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 1. (1994) Cheng, J.: The Fundamental Role of Entailment in Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Journal of Computing and Information. Vol. 2. No. 1 (1996) Cheng, J.: A Strong Relevant Logic Model of Epistemic Processes in Scientific Discovery. Working Notes of ECAI-98 Workshop on Machine Discovery (1998) Gärdenfors, P., Rott, H.: Belief Revision. In: Gabbay, D. M., Hogger, C. J., Robinson, J. A. (eds.): Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. Vol.4. Epistemic and Temporal Reasoning. Oxford University Press (1995)
First-Degree Entailment
March 5, 2013 Relevance Logics Relevance logics are non-classical logics that try to avoid the paradoxes of material and strict implication: p (q p) p (p q) (p q) (q r) (p p) q p (q q) p (q q) Counterintuitive?
More informationRelevant Logic. Daniel Bonevac. March 20, 2013
March 20, 2013 The earliest attempts to devise a relevance logic that avoided the problem of explosion centered on the conditional. FDE, however, has no conditional operator, or a very weak one. If we
More informationPei Wang( 王培 ) Temple University, Philadelphia, USA
Pei Wang( 王培 ) Temple University, Philadelphia, USA Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): a small research community in AI that believes Intelligence is a general-purpose capability Intelligence should
More informationEquivalents of Mingle and Positive Paradox
Eric Schechter Equivalents of Mingle and Positive Paradox Abstract. Relevant logic is a proper subset of classical logic. It does not include among itstheoremsanyof positive paradox A (B A) mingle A (A
More informationLearning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation
Learning Goals of CS245 Logic and Computation Alice Gao April 27, 2018 Contents 1 Propositional Logic 2 2 Predicate Logic 4 3 Program Verification 6 4 Undecidability 7 1 1 Propositional Logic Introduction
More informationLecture 11: Measuring the Complexity of Proofs
IAS/PCMI Summer Session 2000 Clay Mathematics Undergraduate Program Advanced Course on Computational Complexity Lecture 11: Measuring the Complexity of Proofs David Mix Barrington and Alexis Maciel July
More information6. Logical Inference
Artificial Intelligence 6. Logical Inference Prof. Bojana Dalbelo Bašić Assoc. Prof. Jan Šnajder University of Zagreb Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing Academic Year 2016/2017 Creative Commons
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 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 informationPropositional Logic Language
Propositional Logic Language A logic consists of: an alphabet A, a language L, i.e., a set of formulas, and a binary relation = between a set of formulas and a formula. An alphabet A consists of a finite
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 informationMAI0203 Lecture 7: Inference and Predicate Calculus
MAI0203 Lecture 7: Inference and Predicate Calculus Methods of Artificial Intelligence WS 2002/2003 Part II: Inference and Knowledge Representation II.7 Inference and Predicate Calculus MAI0203 Lecture
More informationOverview. I Review of natural deduction. I Soundness and completeness. I Semantics of propositional formulas. I Soundness proof. I Completeness proof.
Overview I Review of natural deduction. I Soundness and completeness. I Semantics of propositional formulas. I Soundness proof. I Completeness proof. Propositional formulas Grammar: ::= p j (:) j ( ^ )
More informationLogic: Propositional Logic (Part I)
Logic: Propositional Logic (Part I) Alessandro Artale Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Faculty of Computer Science http://www.inf.unibz.it/ artale Descrete Mathematics and Logic BSc course Thanks to Prof.
More informationPropositional Logic: Logical Agents (Part I)
Propositional Logic: Logical Agents (Part I) First Lecture Today (Tue 21 Jun) Read Chapters 1 and 2 Second Lecture Today (Tue 21 Jun) Read Chapter 7.1-7.4 Next Lecture (Thu 23 Jun) Read Chapters 7.5 (optional:
More informationLogic and Proofs. (A brief summary)
Logic and Proofs (A brief summary) Why Study Logic: To learn to prove claims/statements rigorously To be able to judge better the soundness and consistency of (others ) arguments To gain the foundations
More informationOverview. Knowledge-Based Agents. Introduction. COMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR
COMP219: Artificial Intelligence Lecture 19: Logic for KR Last time Expert Systems and Ontologies oday Logic as a knowledge representation scheme Propositional Logic Syntax Semantics Proof theory Natural
More informationBelief revision: A vade-mecum
Belief revision: A vade-mecum Peter Gärdenfors Lund University Cognitive Science, Kungshuset, Lundagård, S 223 50 LUND, Sweden Abstract. This paper contains a brief survey of the area of belief revision
More informationCSC Discrete Math I, Spring Propositional Logic
CSC 125 - Discrete Math I, Spring 2017 Propositional Logic Propositions A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false Propositional Variables A propositional variable (p, q, r, s,...)
More informationNested Epistemic Logic Programs
Nested Epistemic Logic Programs Kewen Wang 1 and Yan Zhang 2 1 Griffith University, Australia k.wang@griffith.edu.au 2 University of Western Sydney yan@cit.uws.edu.au Abstract. Nested logic programs and
More informationMaximal Introspection of Agents
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 70 No. 5 (2002) URL: http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume70.html 16 pages Maximal Introspection of Agents Thomas 1 Informatics and Mathematical Modelling
More informationTableaux, Abduction and Truthlikeness RESEARCH REPORT
Section of Logic and Cognitive Science Institute of Psychology Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań Mariusz Urbański Tableaux, Abduction and Truthlikeness RESEARCH REPORT Szamarzewskiego 89, 60-589 Poznań,
More informationA Sequent Calculus for Skeptical Reasoning in Autoepistemic Logic
A Sequent Calculus for Skeptical Reasoning in Autoepistemic Logic Robert Saxon Milnikel Kenyon College, Gambier OH 43022 USA milnikelr@kenyon.edu Abstract A sequent calculus for skeptical consequence in
More informationArgumentation and rules with exceptions
Argumentation and rules with exceptions Bart VERHEIJ Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen Abstract. Models of argumentation often take a given set of rules or conditionals as a starting point.
More informationTwo sources of explosion
Two sources of explosion Eric Kao Computer Science Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 United States of America Abstract. In pursuit of enhancing the deductive power of Direct Logic while
More informationPropositional Logic: Logical Agents (Part I)
Propositional Logic: Logical Agents (Part I) This lecture topic: Propositional Logic (two lectures) Chapter 7.1-7.4 (this lecture, Part I) Chapter 7.5 (next lecture, Part II) Next lecture topic: First-order
More informationMarie Duží
Marie Duží marie.duzi@vsb.cz 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: 1. a language 2. a set of axioms 3. a set of deduction rules ad 1. The definition of a language
More informationCOMP9414: Artificial Intelligence Propositional Logic: Automated Reasoning
COMP9414, Monday 26 March, 2012 Propositional Logic 2 COMP9414: Artificial Intelligence Propositional Logic: Automated Reasoning Overview Proof systems (including soundness and completeness) Normal Forms
More informationNon-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) Specification. Pei Wang
Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) Specification Pei Wang October 30, 2009 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 NAL and NARS........................ 1 1.2 Structure of NAL........................ 2 1.3 Specifying NAL.........................
More informationNatural Deduction for Propositional Logic
Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic Bow-Yaw Wang Institute of Information Science Academia Sinica, Taiwan September 10, 2018 Bow-Yaw Wang (Academia Sinica) Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic
More informationDeductive Systems. Lecture - 3
Deductive Systems Lecture - 3 Axiomatic System Axiomatic System (AS) for PL AS is based on the set of only three axioms and one rule of deduction. It is minimal in structure but as powerful as the truth
More informationGeneral Patterns for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Basic Entailments to Plausible Relations
General Patterns for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Basic Entailments to Plausible Relations OFER ARIELI AND ARNON AVRON, Department of Computer Science, School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel-Aviv University,
More informationDescription Logics. Foundations of Propositional Logic. franconi. Enrico Franconi
(1/27) Description Logics Foundations of Propositional Logic Enrico Franconi franconi@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/ franconi Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester (2/27) Knowledge
More informationTruthmaker Maximalism defended again. Eduardo Barrio and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra
1 Truthmaker Maximalism defended again 1 Eduardo Barrio and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra 1. Truthmaker Maximalism is the thesis that every truth has a truthmaker. Milne (2005) attempts to refute it using
More informationIntegrating State Constraints and Obligations in Situation Calculus
Integrating State Constraints and Obligations in Situation Calculus Robert Demolombe ONERA-Toulouse 2, Avenue Edouard Belin BP 4025, 31055 Toulouse Cedex 4, France. Robert.Demolombe@cert.fr Pilar Pozos
More informationPropositional Logic. Spring Propositional Logic Spring / 32
Propositional Logic Spring 2016 Propositional Logic Spring 2016 1 / 32 Introduction Learning Outcomes for this Presentation Learning Outcomes... At the conclusion of this session, we will Define the elements
More informationPossibilistic Logic. Damien Peelman, Antoine Coulon, Amadou Sylla, Antoine Dessaigne, Loïc Cerf, Narges Hadji-Hosseini.
Possibilistic Logic Damien Peelman, Antoine Coulon, Amadou Sylla, Antoine Dessaigne, Loïc Cerf, Narges Hadji-Hosseini November 21, 2005 1 Introduction In real life there are some situations where only
More informationA Positive Formalization for the Notion of Pragmatic Truth 1
A Positive Formalization for the Notion of Pragmatic Truth 1 Tarcisio Pequeno Laboratório de Inteligência Artificial Universidade Federal do Ceará Fortaleza CE Brazil Arthur Buchsbaum Departamento de Informática
More informationDeliberative Agents Knowledge Representation I. Deliberative Agents
Deliberative Agents Knowledge Representation I Vasant Honavar Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Program Center for Computational Intelligence, Learning, & Discovery honavar@cs.iastate.edu www.cs.iastate.edu/~honavar/
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Propositional Logic. Copyright 2011 Dieter Fensel and Florian Fischer
Artificial Intelligence Propositional Logic Copyright 2011 Dieter Fensel and Florian Fischer 1 Where are we? # Title 1 Introduction 2 Propositional Logic 3 Predicate Logic 4 Reasoning 5 Search Methods
More informationGeneral Logic (with Special Application to Relevance Logic)
General Logic (with Special Application to Relevance Logic) Hans Halvorson (Version 0.2, Revised 7:27pm, Friday 13 th January, 2006.) 1 Structural Rules Our formulation of a natural deduction system for
More informationPL: Truth Trees. Handout Truth Trees: The Setup
Handout 4 PL: Truth Trees Truth tables provide a mechanical method for determining whether a proposition, set of propositions, or argument has a particular logical property. For example, we can show that
More informationInverse Resolution as Belief Change
Inverse Resolution as Belief Change Maurice Pagnucco ARC Centre of Excel. for Autonomous Sys. School of Comp. Science and Engineering The University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. Email:
More informationKRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH 1. INTRODUCTION
KRIPKE S THEORY OF TRUTH RICHARD G HECK, JR 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this note is to give a simple, easily accessible proof of the existence of the minimal fixed point, and of various maximal fixed
More informationLogical Agents. Knowledge based agents. Knowledge based agents. Knowledge based agents. The Wumpus World. Knowledge Bases 10/20/14
0/0/4 Knowledge based agents Logical Agents Agents need to be able to: Store information about their environment Update and reason about that information Russell and Norvig, chapter 7 Knowledge based agents
More informationAn Intuitively Complete Analysis of Gödel s Incompleteness
An Intuitively Complete Analysis of Gödel s Incompleteness JASON W. STEINMETZ (Self-funded) A detailed and rigorous analysis of Gödel s proof of his first incompleteness theorem is presented. The purpose
More informationWarm-Up Problem. Is the following true or false? 1/35
Warm-Up Problem Is the following true or false? 1/35 Propositional Logic: Resolution Carmen Bruni Lecture 6 Based on work by J Buss, A Gao, L Kari, A Lubiw, B Bonakdarpour, D Maftuleac, C Roberts, R Trefler,
More informationFoundations of Artificial Intelligence
Foundations of Artificial Intelligence 7. Propositional Logic Rational Thinking, Logic, Resolution Wolfram Burgard, Maren Bennewitz, and Marco Ragni Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Contents 1 Agents
More informationAdvanced Topics in LP and FP
Lecture 1: Prolog and Summary of this lecture 1 Introduction to Prolog 2 3 Truth value evaluation 4 Prolog Logic programming language Introduction to Prolog Introduced in the 1970s Program = collection
More informationMathematical Logic. Introduction to Reasoning and Automated Reasoning. Hilbert-style Propositional Reasoning. Chiara Ghidini. FBK-IRST, Trento, Italy
Introduction to Reasoning and Automated Reasoning. Hilbert-style Propositional Reasoning. FBK-IRST, Trento, Italy Deciding logical consequence Problem Is there an algorithm to determine whether a formula
More informationFoundations of Artificial Intelligence
Foundations of Artificial Intelligence 7. Propositional Logic Rational Thinking, Logic, Resolution Joschka Boedecker and Wolfram Burgard and Bernhard Nebel Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg May 17, 2016
More informationWhat is an Ideal Logic for Reasoning with Inconsistency?
What is an Ideal Logic for Reasoning with Inconsistency? Ofer Arieli School of Computer Science The Academic College of Tel-Aviv Israel Arnon Avron School of Computer Science Tel-Aviv University Israel
More informationKnowledge base (KB) = set of sentences in a formal language Declarative approach to building an agent (or other system):
Logic Knowledge-based agents Inference engine Knowledge base Domain-independent algorithms Domain-specific content Knowledge base (KB) = set of sentences in a formal language Declarative approach to building
More informationPropositions and Proofs
Chapter 2 Propositions and Proofs The goal of this chapter is to develop the two principal notions of logic, namely propositions and proofs There is no universal agreement about the proper foundations
More informationKnowledge based Agents
Knowledge based Agents Shobhanjana Kalita Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering Tezpur University Slides prepared from Artificial Intelligence A Modern approach by Russell & Norvig Knowledge Based Agents
More informationA Tableau Style Proof System for Two Paraconsistent Logics
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic Volume 34, Number 2, Spring 1993 295 A Tableau Style Proof System for Two Paraconsistent Logics ANTHONY BLOESCH Abstract This paper presents a tableau based proof technique
More informationPropositional Logic Arguments (5A) Young W. Lim 11/8/16
Propositional Logic (5A) Young W. Lim Copyright (c) 2016 Young W. Lim. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
More informationRussell s logicism. Jeff Speaks. September 26, 2007
Russell s logicism Jeff Speaks September 26, 2007 1 Russell s definition of number............................ 2 2 The idea of reducing one theory to another.................... 4 2.1 Axioms and theories.............................
More informationLogic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction
Logic for Computer Science - Week 4 Natural Deduction 1 Introduction In the previous lecture we have discussed some important notions about the semantics of propositional logic. 1. the truth value of a
More informationArtificial Intelligence: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Week 2 Assessment 1 - Answers
Artificial Intelligence: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Week 2 Assessment 1 - Answers 1. When is an inference rule {a1, a2,.., an} c sound? (b) a. When ((a1 a2 an) c) is a tautology b. When ((a1
More informationManual of Logical Style
Manual of Logical Style Dr. Holmes January 9, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Conjunction 3 2.1 Proving a conjunction...................... 3 2.2 Using a conjunction........................ 3 3 Implication
More informationa. ~p : if p is T, then ~p is F, and vice versa
Lecture 10: Propositional Logic II Philosophy 130 3 & 8 November 2016 O Rourke & Gibson I. Administrative A. Group papers back to you on November 3. B. Questions? II. The Meaning of the Conditional III.
More informationAn argumentation system for reasoning with LPm
ECAI 2014 T. Schaub et al. (Eds.) 2014 The Authors and IOS Press. This article is published online with Open Access by IOS Press and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial
More informationSplitting a Default Theory. Hudson Turner. University of Texas at Austin.
Splitting a Default Theory Hudson Turner Department of Computer Sciences University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 7872-88, USA hudson@cs.utexas.edu Abstract This paper presents mathematical results that
More informationINF5390 Kunstig intelligens. Logical Agents. Roar Fjellheim
INF5390 Kunstig intelligens Logical Agents Roar Fjellheim Outline Knowledge-based agents The Wumpus world Knowledge representation Logical reasoning Propositional logic Wumpus agent Summary AIMA Chapter
More informationInference Methods In Propositional Logic
Lecture Notes, Artificial Intelligence ((ENCS434)) University of Birzeit 1 st Semester, 2011 Artificial Intelligence (ENCS434) Inference Methods In Propositional Logic Dr. Mustafa Jarrar University of
More informationInformal Statement Calculus
FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS Branches of Logic 1. Theory of Computations (i.e. Recursion Theory). 2. Proof Theory. 3. Model Theory. 4. Set Theory. Informal Statement Calculus STATEMENTS AND CONNECTIVES Example
More informationLogical Agents (I) Instructor: Tsung-Che Chiang
Logical Agents (I) Instructor: Tsung-Che Chiang tcchiang@ieee.org Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering National Taiwan Normal University Artificial Intelligence, Spring, 2010 編譯有誤
More informationFrom Bi-facial Truth to Bi-facial Proofs
S. Wintein R. A. Muskens From Bi-facial Truth to Bi-facial Proofs Abstract. In their recent paper Bi-facial truth: a case for generalized truth values Zaitsev and Shramko [7] distinguish between an ontological
More informationPropositional Logic Arguments (5A) Young W. Lim 11/30/16
Propositional Logic (5A) Young W. Lim Copyright (c) 2016 Young W. Lim. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
More informationIntroduction to Intelligent Systems
Logical Agents Objectives Inference and entailment Sound and complete inference algorithms Inference by model checking Inference by proof Resolution Forward and backward chaining Reference Russel/Norvig:
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 informationLogic and Proofs. (A brief summary)
Logic and Proofs (A brief summary) Why Study Logic: To learn to prove claims/statements rigorously To be able to judge better the soundness and consistency of (others ) arguments To gain the foundations
More informationPropositional Logic Truth-functionality Definitions Soundness Completeness Inferences. Modal Logic. Daniel Bonevac.
January 22, 2013 Modal logic is, among other things, the logic of possibility and necessity. Its history goes back at least to Aristotle s discussion of modal syllogisms in the Prior Analytics. But modern
More information2.2: Logical Equivalence: The Laws of Logic
Example (2.7) For primitive statement p and q, construct a truth table for each of the following compound statements. a) p q b) p q Here we see that the corresponding truth tables for two statement p q
More informationManual of Logical Style (fresh version 2018)
Manual of Logical Style (fresh version 2018) Randall Holmes 9/5/2018 1 Introduction This is a fresh version of a document I have been working on with my classes at various levels for years. The idea that
More informationArtificial Intelligence Chapter 7: Logical Agents
Artificial Intelligence Chapter 7: Logical Agents Michael Scherger Department of Computer Science Kent State University February 20, 2006 AI: Chapter 7: Logical Agents 1 Contents Knowledge Based Agents
More informationKnowledge representation DATA INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE WISDOM. Figure Relation ship between data, information knowledge and wisdom.
Knowledge representation Introduction Knowledge is the progression that starts with data which s limited utility. Data when processed become information, information when interpreted or evaluated becomes
More informationLecture 2. Logic Compound Statements Conditional Statements Valid & Invalid Arguments Digital Logic Circuits. Reading (Epp s textbook)
Lecture 2 Logic Compound Statements Conditional Statements Valid & Invalid Arguments Digital Logic Circuits Reading (Epp s textbook) 2.1-2.4 1 Logic Logic is a system based on statements. A statement (or
More informationPropositional and Predicate Logic - V
Propositional and Predicate Logic - V Petr Gregor KTIML MFF UK WS 2016/2017 Petr Gregor (KTIML MFF UK) Propositional and Predicate Logic - V WS 2016/2017 1 / 21 Formal proof systems Hilbert s calculus
More informationClassical Propositional Logic
The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction January 16, 2013 The Language of A Henkin-style Proof for Natural Deduction Logic Logic is the science of inference. Given a body of information,
More informationPřednáška 12. Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu. 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1
Přednáška 12 Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1 Formal systems, Proof calculi A proof calculus (of a theory) is given by: A. a language B. a set of axioms C. a set of
More information02 Propositional Logic
SE 2F03 Fall 2005 02 Propositional Logic Instructor: W. M. Farmer Revised: 25 September 2005 1 What is Propositional Logic? Propositional logic is the study of the truth or falsehood of propositions or
More informationIntelligent Agents. Pınar Yolum Utrecht University
Intelligent Agents Pınar Yolum p.yolum@uu.nl Utrecht University Logical Agents (Based mostly on the course slides from http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/) Outline Knowledge-based agents Wumpus world Logic in
More informationLogic. Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Mechanisms. Logic. Propositional Logic Predicate Logic (predicate Calculus) Automated Reasoning
Logic Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Mechanisms Logic Logic as KR Propositional Logic Predicate Logic (predicate Calculus) Automated Reasoning Logical inferences Resolution and Theorem-proving Logic
More informationChapter 7 R&N ICS 271 Fall 2017 Kalev Kask
Set 6: Knowledge Representation: The Propositional Calculus Chapter 7 R&N ICS 271 Fall 2017 Kalev Kask Outline Representing knowledge using logic Agent that reason logically A knowledge based agent Representing
More informationFormal Logic and Deduction Systems
Formal Logic and Deduction Systems Software Formal Verification Maria João Frade Departmento de Informática Universidade do Minho 2008/2009 Maria João Frade (DI-UM) Formal Logic and Deduction Systems MFES
More information7. Propositional Logic. Wolfram Burgard and Bernhard Nebel
Foundations of AI 7. Propositional Logic Rational Thinking, Logic, Resolution Wolfram Burgard and Bernhard Nebel Contents Agents that think rationally The wumpus world Propositional logic: syntax and semantics
More informationPrinciples of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Modal Logics Bernhard Nebel, Malte Helmert and Stefan Wölfl Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg May 2 & 6, 2008 Nebel, Helmert, Wölfl (Uni Freiburg)
More informationDeduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 3 Truth Trees
Deduction by Daniel Bonevac Chapter 3 Truth Trees Truth trees Truth trees provide an alternate decision procedure for assessing validity, logical equivalence, satisfiability and other logical properties
More informationCombining Induction Axioms By Machine
Combining Induction Axioms By Machine Christoph Walther Technische Hochschule Darmstadt Fachbereich Informatik, AlexanderstraBe 10 D 6100 Darmstadt Germany Abstract The combination of induction axioms
More informationWarm-Up Problem. Write a Resolution Proof for. Res 1/32
Warm-Up Problem Write a Resolution Proof for Res 1/32 A second Rule Sometimes throughout we need to also make simplifications: You can do this in line without explicitly mentioning it (just pretend you
More informationDeontic Logic and Meta-Ethics
Deontic Logic and Meta-Ethics Deontic Logic as been a field in which quite apart from the questions of antinomies "paradoxes" have played a decisive roles, since the field has been invented. These paradoxes
More informationInference Methods In Propositional Logic
Lecture Notes, Advanced Artificial Intelligence (SCOM7341) Sina Institute, University of Birzeit 2 nd Semester, 2012 Advanced Artificial Intelligence (SCOM7341) Inference Methods In Propositional Logic
More informationCOMP3702/7702 Artificial Intelligence Week 5: Search in Continuous Space with an Application in Motion Planning " Hanna Kurniawati"
COMP3702/7702 Artificial Intelligence Week 5: Search in Continuous Space with an Application in Motion Planning " Hanna Kurniawati" Last week" Main components of PRM" Collision check for a configuration"
More informationPropositional Logic: Review
Propositional Logic: Review Propositional logic Logical constants: true, false Propositional symbols: P, Q, S,... (atomic sentences) Wrapping parentheses: ( ) Sentences are combined by connectives:...and...or
More informationAn Algorithm for Automatic Demonstration of Logical Theorems
An Algorithm for Automatic Demonstration of Logical Theorems Orlando Zaldivar-Zamorategui Jorge Carrera-Bolaños Abstract. The automatic demonstration of theorems (ADT) is and has been an area of intensive
More informationArtificial Intelligence. Propositional logic
Artificial Intelligence Propositional logic Propositional Logic: Syntax Syntax of propositional logic defines allowable sentences Atomic sentences consists of a single proposition symbol Each symbol stands
More informationPropositional Logic. Fall () Propositional Logic Fall / 30
Propositional Logic Fall 2013 () Propositional Logic Fall 2013 1 / 30 1 Introduction Learning Outcomes for this Presentation 2 Definitions Statements Logical connectives Interpretations, contexts,... Logically
More informationCHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS
CHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS 1 Language There are several propositional languages that are routinely called classical propositional logic languages. It is due to the functional dependency
More information