Predicate Logic - Semantic Tableau

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Predicate Logic - Semantic Tableau"

Ami Potter
5 years ago
Views:

1 CS402, Spring 2016

2 Informal Construction of a Valid Formula Example 1 A valid formula: x(p(x) q(x)) ( xp(x) xq(x)) ( x(p(x) q(x)) ( xp(x) xq(x))) x(p(x) q(x)), ( xp(x) xq(x)) x(p(x) q(x)), xp(x), xq(x) x(p(x) q(x)), xp(x), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(a), q(a) p(a) q(a), p(a), q(a) p(a), p(a), q(a) q(a), p(a), q(a)

3 Informal Construction of a Valid Formula Note that showing validity with semantic tableau boils down to finding a single counter example. That is, if A is satisfiable, A cannot be valid. xq(x) x q(x) Consequently, we can replace the variable x in xq(x) by a single concrete element, a D (D is the target domain). In other words, we use q(a) instead of xq(x). x(p(x) q(x)), xp(x), xq(x) x(p(x) q(x)), xp(x), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(a), q(a) p(a) q(a), p(a), q(a) p(a), p(a), q(a) q(a), p(a), q(a)

4 Informal Constructon of a Satisfiable Formula Example 2 Satisfiable but not valid: x(p(x) q(x)) ( xp(x) xq(x)) ( x(p(x) q(x)) ( xp(x) xq(x))) x(p(x) q(x)), ( xp(x) xq(x)) x(p(x) q(x)), xp(x), xq(x) x(p(x) q(x)), xp(x), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(a), q(a) p(a) q(a), p(a), q(a) p(a), p(a), q(a) q(a), p(a), q(a) Not satisfiable! What went wrong?

5 Informal Constructon of a Satisfiable Formula What went wrong? We should use different constants for different formulas: it is ok to use q(a) instead of xq(x). However, it is not ok to use the same element a for a different formula xp(x). A formula with universal quantifiers without negation cannot be simply replaced by just one instance. Universal formulas should never be deleted from the node. Universal formulas remain in the all descendant nodes so as to constrain the possible interpretations of every new constant that is introduced.

6 Constraining new constants x(p(x) q(x)), xp(x), xq(x) x(p(x) q(x)), xp(x), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(b), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(a) q(a), p(b), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(b) q(b), p(a) q(a), p(b), q(a)

7 Informal Constructon of a Satisfiable Formula Example 3 Here we go again: x(p(x) q(x)) ( xp(x) xq(x)) x(p(x) q(x)), p(b) q(b), p(a) q(a), p(b), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(b) q(b), p(a), p(b), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(b) q(b), q(a), p(b), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), p(b), p(a), p(b), q(a) x(p(x) q(x)), q(b), p(a), p(b), q(a)

8 Infinite Construction Let us consider A = A 1 A 2 A 3, where: A 1 = x yp(x, y) A 2 = x p(x, x) A 3 = x, y, z(p(x, y) p(y, z) p(x, z)) The construction of semantic tableau will not terminate. x yp(x, y), A 2, A 3 x yp(x, y), yp(a 1, y), A 2, A 3 x yp(x, y), p(a 1, a 2 ), A 2, A 3 x yp(x, y), yp(a 2, y), p(a 1, a 2 ), A 2, A 3 x yp(x, y), p(a 2, a 3 ), p(a 1, a 2 ), A 2, A 3...

9 Infinite Construction Let us consider A = A 1 A 2 A 3, where: A 1 = x yp(x, y) A 2 = x p(x, x) A 3 = x, y, z(p(x, y) p(y, z) p(x, z)) This defines a countably infinite model (for example, N 0 : consider p as the successor relation). Once we introduce a new constant a i by instantiating y, then x should be also instantiated with that constant a i, which brings in another instantiation of y, which introduces another constant a j, which... Semantic tableau will have an infinite sequence of formulas p(a 1, a 2 ), p(a 2, a 3 ),... It neither closes nor terminates.

10 Infinite Construction Theorem 1 (5.24) A = A 1 A 2 A 3 has no finite model: A 1 = x yp(x, y), A 2 = x p(x, x), A 3 = x, y, z(p(x, y) p(y, z) p(x, z)) Proof. Suppose that A had a finite model. The domain of an interpretation is non-empty so it has at leas one element. By A 1, there is an infinite sequence of elements a 1, a 2,... s.t. ν σi [x a i ][y a j ](p(x, y)) = T for all i and j = i + 1. By A 3, p(a i, a j ) = T for all j > i since it means transitivity. If the model is finite, there exists some k > i such that a k = a i due to pigeon hole principle. For some k > i s.t. a k = a i, p(a i, a k ) = T by A 3. This contradicts A 2 which requires ν σi [x a i ](p(x, x)) = F.

11 Infinite Construction Observations: Semantic tableau is not a decision procedure for validity in the predicate calculus. Note that, without systematic construction, we may not construct a closed semantic tableau even when it is possible. Consider the order of tree expansion in the example below. A 1 A 2 A 3 x(q(x) q(x)) A 1, A 2, A 3, x(q(x) q(x))

12 Formal Construction Formal construction of semantic tableau consists of two steps. 1 Construction rules (α, β rule, γ rule for x, and δ rule for y.) 2 Systematic construction rules, which specify the order of applying rules. Definition 1 (5.25) A literal is closed atomic formula p(a 1,..., a k ) or the negation of such a formula. If a formula has no free variable, it is closed. Therefore, if an atomic formula is closed, all of its arguments are constants. γ γ(a) δ δ(a) xa(x) xa(x) A(a) A(a) xa(x) xa(x) A(a) A(a)

13 Systematic Construction Algorithm The algorithm takes a predicate calculus formula A as input, and produces a semantic tableau T as output. Each node of T, n is labelled with a set of formulas with a pair of sets, W (n) = (U(n), C(n)), where U(n) = {A n1,..., A nk }, and a set of constants, C(n) = {c n1,..., c nm }. Initially, T for φ is a single node n 0, labelled with {φ}, {a 0 }, where a 0 is the first constant in the constant pool. All branches are either: infinite finite and open, finite and closed. T is inductively built by choosing an unmarked leaf l, labelled with (U(l), C(l)), and applying the first applicable rule in the following list:

14 Systematic Construction Algorithm 1 U(l) contains complementary pair of literals: mark l closed. 2 U(l) is not a set of literals: choose A U(l) that is α, β, or δ formula: A is a α formula: create a new node l, labelled with W (l ) = ((U {A}) {A 1, A 2 }, C(l)). A is a β formula: create two new nodes, l and l. Label them with: W (l ) = ((U(l) = {A}) {A 1}, C(l)) W (l ) = ((U(l) = {A}) {A 2}, C(l)) A is a δ formula: create a new node l as a child of l and label it with W (l ) = ((U(l) {A}) {δ(a )}, C(l) {a }), where a is a constant that does not applear in U(l). 3 Let γ l1,..., γ lm U(l) be all the γ formulas in U(l) and let C(l) = {c l1,..., c lk }. Create a new node l and label it with W (l ) = (U(l) { m k i=1 j=1 γ l i (c lj )}, C(l)). However, if U(l) consists only of literals and γ formulas and if U(l ) as constructed would be the same as U(l), do not create node l ; instead, mark the leaf l as open.

15 Soundness Theorem 2 (5.28) Let A be a formula in the predicate calculus and let T be a tableau for A. If T closes, then A is unsatisfiable. Proof. The proof is by induction on the height h of node n. Cases for h = 0, and the inductive cases for α, β formulas is the same as the proof in the propositional calculus. The γ-rule was used: Then U(n) = U 0 xa(x) and U(n ) = U 0 { xa(x), A(a)}. Assume that U(n) is satisfiable with model I, so that ν I (A i ) = T for all A i U 0 (n) and also ν I ( xa(x )) = T. By Thm 5.15, ν I ( xa(x)) = T iff ν σi = T for all assignments σi, in particular for any assignment that assigns the same domain element to x that I does to a. But ν I (A(a)) = T contradicts the inductive hypothesis that U(n ) is unsatisfiable.

16 Soundness Proof. The δ-rule was used: Then U(n) = U 0 { xa(x)} and U(n ) = U 0 {A(a)} for some constant a which does not occur in a formula of U(n). Assume that U(n) is satisfiable and let I = (D, {R 1,..., R n }, {d 1,..., d k }) be a satisfying interpretation. Then ν I ( xa(x)) = T, so for the relation R i assigned to A and for some d D, (d) R i. Extend I to the interpretation I = (D, {R 1,..., R n }, {d 1,..., d k, d}) by assigning d to the constant a. Then ν I (A(a)) = T, and since ν I (U 0 ) = ν I (U 0 ) = T, we can conclude that ν I (U(n )) = T, contradicting the inductive hypothesis that U(n ) is unsatisfiable.

17 Completeness Theorem 3 (5.34) Let A be a valid formula. Then the systematic semantic tableau for A closes. Definition 2 (5.31) Let U be a set of formulas in the predicate calculus. U is a Hintikka set iff the following conditions hold for all formulas A U: If A is a closed atomic formula, either A / U or A / U If A is an α-formula, α 1 U and α 2 U If A is a β-formula, β 1 U or β 2 U If A is a γformulas, γ(α) U for all constants a appearing in formulas in U If A is a δ-formula, δ(a) U for some constant a

18 Completeness Theorem 4 (5.32 ) Let b be an open branch of a systematic tableau and U = n b U(n). The U is a Hintikka set. Lemma 1 (5.33) Hintikka s lemma: Let U be a Hintikka set. Then there is a model for U. Proof of Completeness (Thm 5.34). Let A be a valid formula and suppose that the systematic tableau for A does not close. By Thm 5.32, there is an open branch b s.t. U = U n b U(n) is a Hintikka set. By Lem 5.33, there is a model I for U. But A U so I = A, contradicting the assumption that A is valid.

Predicate Calculus - Semantic Tableau (2/2) Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST

Predicate Calculus - Semantic Tableau (2/2) Moonzoo Kim CS Division of EECS Dept. KAIST moonzoo@cs.kaist.ac.kr http://pswlab.kaist.ac.kr/courses/cs402-07 1 Formal construction is explained in two steps