Adding Some. Larry Moss. Nordic Logic School August 7-11, Indiana University 1/37

Similar documents
Extensions to the Logic of All x are y: Verbs, Relative Clauses, and Only

Relational Reasoning in Natural Language

Natural Logic Welcome to the Course!

ESSLLI 2007 COURSE READER. ESSLLI is the Annual Summer School of FoLLI, The Association for Logic, Language and Information

6c Lecture 14: May 14, 2014

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC. Propositional Logic. Examples of syntactic claims

Chapter 4: Classical Propositional Semantics

Propositional Logic: Part II - Syntax & Proofs 0-0

Tecniche di Verifica. Introduction to Propositional Logic

Arguments and Proofs. 1. A set of sentences (the premises) 2. A sentence (the conclusion)

Syllogistic Logic and its Extensions

Comp487/587 - Boolean Formulas

Truth-Functional Logic

Essential facts about NP-completeness:

CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION TO CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

Propositional Logic: Semantics and an Example

An Introduction to Modal Logic III

Chapter 2: Introduction to Propositional Logic

Knowledge base (KB) = set of sentences in a formal language Declarative approach to building an agent (or other system):

NP-Completeness and Boolean Satisfiability

INF3170 Logikk Spring Homework #8 For Friday, March 18

1 Propositional Logic

Propositional logic (revision) & semantic entailment. p. 1/34

arxiv: v1 [cs.lo] 4 Aug 2008

3 The language of proof

Introduction to Metalogic

5. And. 5.1 The conjunction

Logical Structures in Natural Language: Propositional Logic II (Truth Tables and Reasoning

cis32-ai lecture # 18 mon-3-apr-2006

On the satisfiability problem for a 4-level quantified syllogistic and some applications to modal logic

Lecture 2: Syntax. January 24, 2018

Natural Logic. Larry Moss, Indiana University EASLLC, /41

cse541 LOGIC FOR COMPUTER SCIENCE

CHAPTER 4 CLASSICAL PROPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS

Mathmatics 239 solutions to Homework for Chapter 2

Ling 130 Notes: Syntax and Semantics of Propositional Logic

5. And. 5.1 The conjunction

Logics for Natural Language Inference (expanded version of lecture notes from a course at ESSLLI 2010) Lawrence S. Moss November 2010

Solving Equations by Adding and Subtracting

Final Exam (100 points)

Deduction by Daniel Bonevac. Chapter 3 Truth Trees

Logic: Propositional Logic Truth Tables

Natural Logic. Larry Moss, Indiana University. October 23, UC Berkeley Logic Seminar

15414/614 Optional Lecture 1: Propositional Logic

Examples: P: it is not the case that P. P Q: P or Q P Q: P implies Q (if P then Q) Typical formula:

Logic I - Session 22. Meta-theory for predicate logic

Chapter 7 Propositional Satisfiability Techniques

KB Agents and Propositional Logic

Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic

Basics of Proofs. 1 The Basics. 2 Proof Strategies. 2.1 Understand What s Going On

Predicate Logic. Predicates. Math 173 February 9, 2010

Lecture 4: Proposition, Connectives and Truth Tables

1 More finite deterministic automata

Proofs. Chapter 2 P P Q Q

P P P NP-Hard: L is NP-hard if for all L NP, L L. Thus, if we could solve L in polynomial. Cook's Theorem and Reductions

NP-Completeness I. Lecture Overview Introduction: Reduction and Expressiveness

Proof Techniques (Review of Math 271)

Propositional Logic. Testing, Quality Assurance, and Maintenance Winter Prof. Arie Gurfinkel

Lecture 4: Constructing the Integers, Rationals and Reals

Chapter 2. Reductions and NP. 2.1 Reductions Continued The Satisfiability Problem (SAT) SAT 3SAT. CS 573: Algorithms, Fall 2013 August 29, 2013

Proofs. Joe Patten August 10, 2018

Mathematical Preliminaries. Sipser pages 1-28

Lecture 3: Semantics of Propositional Logic

Natural Logic. Larry Moss, Indiana University. ASL North American Annual Meeting, March 19, 2010

Chapter 7 Propositional Satisfiability Techniques

Computability Crib Sheet

CHAPTER 6 - THINKING ABOUT AND PRACTICING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

Introducing Proof 1. hsn.uk.net. Contents

Computational Models - Lecture 4

Manual of Logical Style (fresh version 2018)

UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane Philosophy 142

Proofs. Chapter 2 P P Q Q

Introduction to Logic and Axiomatic Set Theory

Inference in Propositional Logic

COMP 409: Logic Homework 5

2 Lecture 2: Logical statements and proof by contradiction Lecture 10: More on Permutations, Group Homomorphisms 31

Propositional Logic: Syntax

The Lambek-Grishin calculus for unary connectives

COMP9414: Artificial Intelligence Propositional Logic: Automated Reasoning

The semantics of propositional logic

CHAPTER 10. Gentzen Style Proof Systems for Classical Logic

The Importance of Being Formal. Martin Henz. February 5, Propositional Logic

A brief introduction to Logic. (slides from

3 Propositional Logic

Preparing for the CS 173 (A) Fall 2018 Midterm 1

Propositional Logics and their Algebraic Equivalents

= x ( x 2 4 ) [factor out x] (2)

Proseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2013 Ling 720 Propositional Logic: Syntax and Natural Deduction 1

Languages, regular languages, finite automata

MA103 STATEMENTS, PROOF, LOGIC

Spring 2018 Ling 620 The Basics of Intensional Semantics, Part 1: The Motivation for Intensions and How to Formalize Them 1

For all For every For each For any There exists at least one There exists There is Some

Propositions. c D. Poole and A. Mackworth 2010 Artificial Intelligence, Lecture 5.1, Page 1

NP-Completeness Part II

Presentation 1

Lecture 4. Algebra, continued Section 2: Lattices and Boolean algebras

Formal Epistemology: Lecture Notes. Horacio Arló-Costa Carnegie Mellon University

Equational Logic and Term Rewriting: Lecture I

FORMAL PROOFS DONU ARAPURA

Before you get started, make sure you ve read Chapter 1, which sets the tone for the work we will begin doing here.

Transcription:

1/37 Adding Some Larry Moss Indiana University Nordic Logic School August 7-11, 2017

2/37 What this chapter is about We started with the very small logic A of All x are y. And most recently we added verbs and relative clauses. At this point, we go back to A and add Some x are y. Tomorrow, we ll want to add some to the language of verbs, and then negation.

3/37 A course first-order logic R S A(RC) all+some all+no propositional logic A

A course first-order logic R S A(RC) all+some all+no propositional logic A My plan is to do a pretty quick treatment of the logic all + some 3/37

4/37 Syntax We start with a set P of unary atoms, also called nouns. The sentences today are All p are q and Some p are q, where p and q are atoms.

5/37 Semantics For the semantics, we use models M that consist of a set M with interpretations [[p]] of the atoms. Then we define M = All p are q iff [[p]] [[q]] M = Some p are q iff [[p]] [[q]]

6/37 Example M = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} [[p]] = {1,3,4} [[q]] = {4} [[n]] = {1,7}. [[x]] = Then we have the following facts: M = Some n are p M = Some p are n M = Some p are p M = Some x are x

7/37 Semantic Consequences What should Γ = ϕ mean?

8/37 Another All p are v,all v are q,some v are w = Some p are p. Can you find a counter-model for this? That is, can you find a model where the assumptions are true and the conclusion is false?

9/37 The logic of All and Some All p are p axiom All p are n All n are q All p are q barbara Some p are q Some p are p some 1 Some p are q Some q are p some 2 All q are n Some p are q Some p are n darii

10/37 Example of a derivation in S All n are q All n are p Some n are n darii Some n are p Some p are n some 1 darii Some p are q In words: if there is an n, and if all ns are ps and also qs, then some p is a q.

11/37 A question to provoke your thoughts Γ = All a are b, All a are c, All b are c, All c are b, All c are d, All b are e, All d are g, All f are g, All g are f, All e are h, All b are I, Some d are e, Some I are g f,g h d I e 8 888888 b,c a Does Γ = Some f are h? Does Γ = Some d are I?

12/37 Let s see how the counter-models work Γ = All a are b, All a are c, All b are c, All c are b, All c are d, All b are e, All d are g, All f are g, All g are f, All e are h, All b are I, ϕ: Some d are e ψ: Some I are g f,g h d I e 8 888888 b,c [[a]] = [[b]] = [[c]] = [[d]] = {ϕ} [[e]] = {ϕ} [[f]] = {ϕ,ψ} [[g]] = {ϕ,ψ} [[h]] = {ϕ} [[I]] = {ψ} a Here is a model which shows Γ = Some d are I. M = {ϕ,ψ}. The points of the model are sentences! For all x, put ϕ in [[x]] provided d x or e x. For all x, put ψ in [[x]] provided I x or g x.

13/37 Completeness: if Γ = ϕ, then Γ ϕ When ϕ is an All-sentence, it s just like what we saw in Tuesday s homework. Let s do this when ϕ is a Some-sentence, say Some y are z. So we assume that Γ = Some y are z, and we show using a canonical model that we devise based on our example above that Γ Some y are z.

14/37 Completeness: if Γ = Some y are z, then Γ Some y are z At this point, I want to remind you of some notation from earlier in the course. If we have a set Γ in mind, we sometimes write x y to mean Γ All x are y We do this to save a little space.

15/37 Completeness: if Γ = Some y are z, then Γ Some y are z Let M be the set of all Some-sentences in Γ. We will use letters like ϕ and ψ for these, and we speak of the first and second atoms in these sentences. Here is how we interpret nouns in our model: [[u]] = {ϕ : }

Completeness: if Γ = Some y are z, then Γ Some y are z Let M be the set of all Some-sentences in Γ. We will use letters like ϕ and ψ for these, and we speak of the first and second atoms in these sentences. Here is how we interpret nouns in our model: [[u]] = {ϕ M : one of the two atoms in ϕ is Γ u} = { Some x are y in Γ : either Γ All x are u or Γ All y are u} Lemma M = Γ. Once this is done, we have M = Some y are z. Why? And we use this last fact to show that Γ Some y are z. 15/37

15/37 Completeness: if Γ = Some y are z, then Γ Some y are z Let M be the set of all Some-sentences in Γ. We will use letters like ϕ and ψ for these, and we speak of the first and second atoms in these sentences. Here is how we interpret nouns in our model: Lemma M = Γ. Once this is done, we have M = Some y are z. Why? And we use this last fact to show that Γ Some y are z.

16/37 Completeness: if Γ = Some y are z, then Γ Some y are z Lemma M = Γ. Proof. (first half) Take an All-sentence in Γ, say All a are b. Let ϕ [[a]]. We show that ϕ [[b]]. Suppose that ϕ is Some m are n. Then either m a, or else n a. Since a b, we see that either m b, or else n b. And this means that ϕ [[b]]. That is, M = All a are b.

17/37 Completeness: if Γ = Some y are z, then Γ Some y are z Lemma M = Γ. Proof. (second half) Take a Some-sentence in Γ, say Some a are b. This sentence itself belongs to [[a]] [[b]]. So M = Some a are b.

18/37 Recall that we are assuming that Γ = Some y are z, and then proving that Γ Some y are z. We have a model M, and we showed that M = Γ. So M = Some y are z. Thus, in our model [[y]] [[z]]. Let ϕ Γ belong to [[y]] [[z]]. Let s write ϕ as Some a are b. Since ϕ [[y]], either a y or b y. Since ϕ [[z]], either a z or b z. Finishing completeness

19/37 Finishing completeness Recall that we are assuming that Γ = Some y are z, and then proving that Γ Some y are z. Γ contains the sentence Some a are b. Case 1: a y and a z Case 2: a y and b z Case 3: b y and a z Case 4: b y and b z

20/37 Recall that we are assuming that Γ = Some y are z, and then proving that Γ Some y are z. Γ contains the sentence Some a are b. Case 1: a y and a z Finishing completeness. Some a are b All a are y Some a are a some 1 darii. Some a are y All a are z Some y are a some 2 darii Some y are z Case 2: a y and b z Case 3: b y and a z Case 4: b y and b z

21/37 Recall that we are assuming that Γ = Some y are z, and then proving that Γ Some y are z. Γ contains the sentence Some a are b. Case 1: a y and a z Finishing completeness Case 2: a y and b z Case 3: b y and a z Case 4: b y and b z Some a are b. Some b are a some 2 All b are y Some b are b some 1 darii. Some b are y All b are z Some y are b some 2 darii Some y are z

22/37 Finishing completeness Recall that we are assuming that Γ = Some y are z, and then proving that Γ Some y are z. Case 1: a y and a z Case 2: a y and b z You try this one. Case 3: a z and b y You try this one. Case 4: a z and b z

23/37 To see if Γ Some a are b Construct the All-graph of Γ. Look at All the Some sentences in Γ one at a time. Let s say that one of them is Some u are v. Ask if one of the following 4 conditions hold: We can get from u to a, and from u to b. We can get from u to a, and from v to b. We can get from v to a, and from u to b. We can get from v to a, and from v to b. If this happens for any sentence Some u are v in Γ some, then we know that Γ Some a are b. If not, then we want to make a counter-model, say M. We take the universe M to be the set Γ some. Some u are v [[W]] iff either u W or v W.

24/37 Adding Some-sentences to A(RC) Recall that A(RC) is our language with term formers r all t sentence former All t u. We now want to enlarge this by adding sentence former Some t u. (Of course, we will then want to add term formers r all t. But I m not going to go there today. )

25/37 The natural thing to try All p are p axiom All p are n All n are q All p are q barbara Some p are q Some p are p some 1 Some p are q Some q are p some 2 All q are n Some p are q Some p are n darii All x (r all y) All z y All x (r all z) down

26/37 But this doesn t work! Theorem There is no finite sound and complete set of rules of the kind we have been studying for this language.

26/37 But this doesn t work! Theorem There is no finite sound and complete set of rules of the kind we have been studying for this language. Here is a hint of why this is the case. some c d,all a x,all a y,all (r all a) x,all (r all a) y some x y. Let Γ be the set of assumptions on the left. Claim Γ = some x y Can you think about this? Hint Do it by cases depending on whether [[a]] = or not.

27/37 Proof by Cases We adopt a new rule, (cases). [some x x] ϕ [all z 1 (r 1 all x)] [all z k (r k all x)] ϕ ϕ cases

27/37 Proof by Cases We adopt a new rule, (cases). [some x x] ϕ In words, to prove ϕ from Γ, we may Take any variable (=noun) x. [all z 1 (r 1 all x)] [all z k (r k all x)] ϕ ϕ cases Add some x are x to Γ, and prove ϕ. Add any set of sentences all z (r all x) to Γ, and again prove ϕ.

28/37 We show that 1 Γ {some a a} some x y 2 Γ {all c (r all a)} some x y The first is easy from all a x and all a y. The second comes from Proof by Cases: An example all c (r all a) all (r all a) y all c y all c (r all a) all (r all a) x all c x some c x some x y some c d

The resulting system is complete. However, adding proof features like proof by cases and reductio ad absurdum complicates the proof search algorithm. Comment on complexity Indeed, in a strictly syllogistic system, the relation Γ ϕ is in polynomial time, and adding the extra features could give us proof systems for which this relation is co-np-complete. In other words, if we have a complete logic for which the problem Γ ϕ is co-np-complete. then (assuming P NP), lll we cannot hope to find a finite, purely syllogistic proof system. 29/37

30/37 On the other hand For the particular logic that we are studying, term formers r all t sentence former All t u and Some t u the relation Γ ϕ happens to be in polynomial time.

30/37 On the other hand For the particular logic that we are studying, term formers r all t sentence former All t u and Some t u the relation Γ ϕ happens to be in polynomial time. Even more strangely, it s possible to extend the language and then indeed get a purely syllogistic system!

31/37 We add to our current language a new four-place sentence former with semantics When x = y, we write a x b. a b xy M = a b iff [[x]] [[y]] = implies [[a]] [[b]] xy i.e., (Some x y) (All a b) A new symbol

32/37 A finite, complete set of rules Alex Kruckman & LM (2017) All p are p axiom All p are n All n are q All p are q barbara Some p are q Some p are p some 1 Some p are q Some q are p some 2 All q are n Some p are q Some p are n darii All x (r all y) All z y All x (r all z) down a a r 0 xy a b yx a b r 1 xy a b xy a b r 2 x a b b c xy xy a c xy r 3 all a b a b r 4 xy a b xy r all b r all a r 5 xy a x a y xy xy b r all a xy r 6 a x a y xy xy a b xy r 7 a b u x v y uv xy xy a b xy r 8 some a b a x b y xy xy some x y r 9 some x y a b xy r 10

33/37 We add a complement symbol to our nouns and verbs. We always understand x to be the same as x. Relational Syllogistic Logic No embedded relative clauses, and subjects noun phrases must not contain relative clauses.

33/37 We add a complement symbol to our nouns and verbs. We always understand x to be the same as x. Relational Syllogistic Logic No embedded relative clauses, and subjects noun phrases must not contain relative clauses. formal syntax read in English all(p,q) all p are q some(p,q) some p are q all(p,r allq) all p r all q all(p,r someq) all p r some q some(p,r allq) some p r all q some(p,r someq) some p r some q some(p, q) some p aren t q all(p,q) no p are q some(p,r someq) some p don t-r some q some(p,r allq) some p don t-r any q all(p,r someq) all p don t-r some q all(p,r allq) all p don t-r any q

34/37 A model M for R is a set M, together with interpretation functions [[ ]] : P P(M) [[ ]] : R P(M M) Semantics This means that for each unary atom p P, [[p]] M, and for each binary atom r, [[r]] M M. We interpret literals p and r using set complements: [[p]] = M \[[p]] [[r]] = M 2 \[[r]]. We then interpret terms by subsets of M in the following way [[s all p]] = {m M : for all n [[p]], (m,n) [[s]]} [[s some p]] = {m M : for some n [[p]], (m,n) [[s]]} Finally, M = all(p,c) iff [[p]] [[c]] M = some(p,c) iff [[p]] [[c]]

35/37 One unary atom p, and one binary atom s. Example of the semantics A model M might have M = {w,x,y,z}, [[p]] = {w,x,y} and s as shown below: w x In this model, 7 7777777 y z [[p]] = {z} [[s all p]] = [[ssomep]] = M [[ssomep]] = M Here are two R-sentences true in M: some(p,p), and also all(p,s somep).

36/37 Logic some(p, q) all(q, c) some(p, c) (D1) all(p, q) all(q, c) all(p, c) (B) all(p, q) some(p, c) some(q, c) (D2) all(p,p) (T) some(p,c) some(p,p) (I) all(q, c) some(p, c) some(p, q) (D3) all(p, p) all(p,c) zero some(p,tsomeq) some(q, q) (II) all(p,talln) some(q,n) all(p,tsomeq) (all ) some(p,tsomeq) all(q,n) some(p,tsomen) ( ) [ϕ] all(p,tsomeq) all(q,n) all(p,tsomen) (allall). ϕ RAA

37/37