Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 225 views

    Predicate Logic

    Uploaded by

    Muneeb Javaid
    This document provides an overview of predicate logic, which remedies limitations of propositional logic. Predicate logic explicitly models objects and their properties using constants, variables, and predicates. Predicates assign truth values to statements about objects and their properties. Compound statements can be formed using logical connectives. Quantified statements about groups of objects are expressed using universal and existential quantifiers. The order and nesting of quantifiers impacts the meaning. Negation of quantified statements follows DeMorgan's laws. Theorems are statements that can be proven true from given premises using formal proof methods.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Predicate Logic

    Uploaded by

    Muneeb Javaid
    225 views33 pages
    This document provides an overview of predicate logic, which remedies limitations of propositional logic. Predicate logic explicitly models objects and their properties using constants, variables, and predicates. Predicates assign truth values to statements about objects and their properties. Compound statements can be formed using logical connectives. Quantified statements about groups of objects are expressed using universal and existential quantifiers. The order and nesting of quantifiers impacts the meaning. Negation of quantified statements follows DeMorgan's laws. Theorems are statements that can be proven true from given premises using formal proof methods.

    Original Description:

    mathematics

    Original Title

    predicate logic

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an overview of predicate logic, which remedies limitations of propositional logic. Predicate logic explicitly models objects and their properties using constants, variables, and predicates. Predicates assign truth values to statements about objects and their properties. Compound statements can be formed using logical connectives. Quantified statements about groups of objects are expressed using universal and existential quantifiers. The order and nesting of quantifiers impacts the meaning. Negation of quantified statements follows DeMorgan's laws. Theorems are statements that can be proven true from given premises using formal proof methods.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    225 views33 pages

    Predicate Logic

    Uploaded by

    Muneeb Javaid
    This document provides an overview of predicate logic, which remedies limitations of propositional logic. Predicate logic explicitly models objects and their properties using constants, variables, and predicates. Predicates assign truth values to statements about objects and their properties. Compound statements can be formed using logical connectives. Quantified statements about groups of objects are expressed using universal and existential quantifiers. The order and nesting of quantifiers impacts the meaning. Negation of quantified statements follows DeMorgan's laws. Theorems are statements that can be proven true from given premises using formal proof methods.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 33

    MIT Lecture 5

    Predicate logic

    Attique Ur Rehman
    Lecturer BZU Lahore

    attiquere@gmail.com

    Propositional logic: limitations


    Propositional logic: the world is described in terms of
    elementary propositions and their logical
    combinations
    Typically statements:
    refer to objects, their properties and relations.
    Elementary
    But these are not explicitly represented in the propositional
    logic
    Example:
    John is a UPitt student.
    John

    a Upitt student

    object

    a property

    Objects and properties are hidden in the statement, it is


    not possible to reason about them

    Propositional logic: limitations


    (1) Statements that hold for many objects must be enumerated
    Example:
    John is a CS UPitt graduate John has passed cs441
    Ann is a CS Upitt graduate Ann has passed cs441
    Ken is a CS Upitt graduate Ken has passed cs441

    Solution: make statements with variables
    x is a CS UPitt graduate x has
    cs441
    passed

    Propositional logic: limitations


    (2) Statements that define the property of the group of objects
    Example:
    All new cars must be registered.
    Some of the CS graduates graduate with honor.
    Solution: make statements with quantifiers
    Universal quantifier the property is satisfied by all
    members of the group
    Existential quantifier at least one member of the group
    satisfy the property

    Predicate logic
    Remedies the limitations of the propositional logic
    Explicitly models objects and their properties
    Allows to make statements with variables and
    them
    quantifylogic:
    Predicate
    Constant models a specific object
    Examples: John, France, 7
    Variable represents object of specific type (defined by the
    universe of discourse)
    Examples: x, y
    (universe of discourse can be people, students, numbers)
    Predicate - over one, two or many variables or constants.
    Represents properties or relations among objects
    Examples: Red(car23), student(x), married(John,Ann)

    Predicates
    Predicates represent properties or relations among
    objects
    A predicate P(x) assigns a value true or false to each x
    depending on whether the property holds or not for x.
    The assignment is best viewed as a big table with the
    variable substituted for objects from the universe of
    discourse

    Example:
    Assume Student(x) where the universe of discourse are people
    Student(John) . T (if John is a student)
    Student(Ann) . T (if Ann is a student)
    Student(Jane) .. F (if Jane is not a student)

    Predicates
    Assume a predicate P(x) that represents the statement:
    x is a prime number
    Truth values for different x:
    P(2)
    T
    P(3)
    T
    P(4)
    F
    P(5)
    T
    P(6)
    F
    All statements P(2), P(3), P(4), P(5), P(6) are propositions

    But P(x) with variable x is not a proposition

    Compound statements in predicate logic


    Compound statements are obtained via logical connectives
    Examples:
    Student(Ann) Student(Jane)
    Translation: Both Ann and Jane are students
    Proposition: yes.
    Country(Sienna) River(Sienna)
    Translation: Sienna is a country or a river
    Proposition: yes.
    CS-major(x) Student(x)
    Translation: if x is a CS-major then x is a student
    Proposition: no.

    Quantified statements
    Predicate logic lets us to make statements about groups of
    objects
    To do this we use special quantified expressions
    Two types of quantified statements:
    universal
    Example: all CS Upitt graduates have to pass
    cs441
    the statement is true for all graduates
    existential
    Example: Some CS Upitt students graduate with honor.
    the statement is true for some people

    Universal quantifier
    Quantification converts a propositional function
    a
    intoproposition by binding a variable to a set of values from the
    universe of discourse.
    Example:
    Let P(x) denote x > x - 1.
    Is P(x) a proposition? No. Many possible substitutions.
    Is x P(x) a proposition? Yes. True if for all x from the
    universe of discourse P(x) is true.

    Universally quantified statements


    Predicate logic lets us make statements about groups of objects
    Universally quantified statement
    CS-major(x) Student(x)
    Translation: if x is a CS-major then x is a student
    Proposition: no.

    x CS-major(x) Student(x)
    Translation: (For all people it holds that) if a person is a
    CS-major then she is a student.
    Proposition: yes.

    Existentially quantified statements


    Statements about groups of objects
    Example:
    CS-Upitt-graduate (x) Honor-student(x)
    Translation: x is a CS-Upitt-graduate and x is an honor
    student
    Proposition: no.
    x CS-Upitt-graduate (x) Honor-student(x)
    Translation: There is a person who is a CS-Upitt-graduate
    and who is also an honor student.
    Proposition: yes.

    Summary of quantified statements


    When x P(x) and x P(x) are true and false?
    Statement

    When true?

    When false?

    x P(x)

    P(x) true for all x

    x P(x)

    There is some x for P(x) is false for all


    which P(x) is true. x.

    There is an x
    where P(x) is false.

    Suppose the elements in the universe of discourse can be


    enumerated as x1, x2, ..., xN then:
    x P(x) is true whenever P(x1) P(x2) ... P(xN) is true
    x P(x) is true whenever P(x1) P(x2) ... P(xN) is true.

    Translation with quantifiers


    Sentence:
    All Upitt students are smart.
    Assume: the domain of discourse of x are Upitt students
    Translation:
    x Smart(x)
    Assume: the universe of discourse are students (all students):
    x at(x,Upitt) Smart(x)
    Assume: the universe of discourse are people:
    x student(x) at(x,Upitt) Smart(x)

    Translation with quantifiers


    Sentence:
    Someone at CMU is smart.
    Assume: the domain of discourse are all CMU affiliates
    Translation:
    x Smart(x)
    Assume: the universe of discourse are people:
    x at(x,CMU) Smart(x)

    Translation with quantifiers


    Assume two predicates S(x) and P(x)
    Universal statements typically tie with implications
    All S(x) is P(x)
    x ( S(x) P(x) )
    No S(x) is P(x)
    x( S(x) P(x) )
    Existential statements typically tie with conjunctions
    Some S(x) is P(x)
    x (S(x) P(x) )
    Some S(x) is not P(x)
    x (S(x) P(x) )

    Nested quantifiers
    More than one quantifier may be necessary to
    the
    capture meaning of a statement in the predicate logic.
    Example:
    Every real number has its corresponding negative.
    Translation:
    Assume:
    a real number is denoted as x and its negative as y
    A predicate P(x,y) denotes: x + y =0
    Then we can write:
    x y P(x,y)

    Nested quantifiers
    More than one quantifier may be necessary
    to meaning of a statement in the predicate
    logic.
    Example:
    There is a person who loves everybody.
    Translation:
    Assume:
    Variables x and y denote people
    A predicate L(x,y) denotes: x loves y
    Then we can write in the predicate logic:
    x y L(x,y)

    capture the

    Order of quantifiers
    The order of nested quantifiers matters if quantifiers are of
    different type
    xy L(x,y) is not the same as yx L(x,y)
    Example:
    Assume L(x,y) denotes x loves y
    Then: xy L(x,y)
    Translates to: Everybody loves somebody.
    And: y x L(x,y)
    Translates to: There is someone who is
    loved
    The meaning of the two is different.

    by everyone.

    Order of quantifiers
    The order of nested quantifiers does not matter if quantifiers
    are of the same type
    Example:
    For all x and y, if x is a parent of y then y is a child of x
    Assume:
    Parent(x,y) denotes x is a parent of y
    Child(x,y) denotes x is a child of y
    Two equivalent ways to represent the statement:
    x y Parent(x,y) Child(y,x)
    y x Parent(x,y) Child(y,x)

    Translation exercise
    Suppose:
    Variables x,y denote people
    L(x,y) denotes x loves y.
    Translate:
    x L(x,Raymond)
    Everybody loves Raymond.
    Everybody loves somebody.
    xy L(x,y)
    There is somebody whom everybody loves. yx L(x,y)
    There is somebody who Raymond doesn't love.

    yL(Raymond,y)

    There is somebody whom no one loves.


    y x L(x,y)

    Negation of quantifiers
    English statement:
    Nothing is perfect.
    Translation: x Perfect(x)
    Another way to express the same meaning:
    Everything is imperfect.
    Translation: x Perfect(x)
    Conclusion: x P (x) is equivalent to x P(x)

    Negation of quantifiers
    English statement:
    It is not the case that all dogs are fleabags.
    Translation: x Dog(x) Fleabag(x)
    Another way to express the same meaning:
    There is a dog that is not a fleabag.
    Translation: x Dog(x) Fleabag(x)
    Logically equivalent to:
    x ( Dog(x)
    Fleabag(x) )
    Conclusion: x P (x) is equivalent to x P(x)

    Negation of quantified statements


    (aka DeMorgan Laws for quantifiers)
    Negation
    x P(x)
    x P(x)

    Equivalent
    x P(x)
    x P(x)

    Theorems and proofs


    The truth value of some statements about the world is obvious
    and is easy to assign
    The truth of other statements may not be obvious,
    . But it may still follow (be derived) from known facts
    about
    To the
    show
    the truth value of such a statement following from other
    world
    statements we need to provide a correct supporting argument
    - a proof
    Problem:
    It is easy to make a mistake and argue the support incorrectly.
    Important questions:
    When is the argument correct?
    How to construct a correct argument, what method to
    use?

    Theorems and proofs


    Theorem: a statement that can be shown to be true.
    Typically the theorem looks like this:
    (p1 p2 p3 pn ) q
    Premises (hypotheses)

    conclusion

    Example:
    Fermats Little theorem:
    If p is a prime and a is an integer not divisible by p,
    then: a p 1 1 mod p

    Theorems and proofs


    Theorem: a statement that can be shown to be true.
    Typically the theorem looks like this:
    (p1 p2 p3 pn ) q
    Premises (hypotheses)

    conclusion

    Example:
    Premises (hypotheses)
    Fermats Little theorem:
    If p is a prime and a is an integer not divisible by p,
    then: a p 1 1mod p
    conclusion

    Formal proofs
    Proof:
    Provides an argument supporting the validity of the statement
    Proof of the theorem:
    shows that the conclusion follows from premises
    may use:
    Premises
    Axioms
    Results of other theorems
    Formal proofs:
    steps of the proofs follow logically from the set of premises and
    axioms

    Formal proofs
    Formal proofs:
    show that steps of the proofs follow logically from the set of
    hypotheses and axioms
    hypotheses

    conclusion

    +
    axioms

    In this class we assume formal proofs in the propositional logic

    Rules of inference
    Rules of inference: logically valid inference patterns
    Example;
    Modus Ponens, or the Law of Detachment
    Rule of inference
    p
    p q q

    Given p is true and the implication p q is true then q is true.

    Rules of inference
    Rules of inference: logically valid inference patterns
    Example;
    Modus Ponens, or the Law of Detachment
    Rule of inference
    p
    p q q
    implicat
    ion
    p q is true then q is true.
    Given p is true and the
    p
    False
    False
    True
    True

    q
    False
    True
    False
    True

    pq
    True
    True
    False
    True

    Rules of inference
    Rules of inference: logically valid inference patterns
    Example;
    Modus Ponens, or the Law of Detachment
    Rule of inference
    p
    p q
    q
    p q is true then q is true.
    Given p is true and the implicat
    ion
    pq
    p
    False
    False
    True
    True

    q
    False
    True
    False
    True

    True
    True
    False
    True

    Rules of inference
    Rules of inference: logically valid inference patterns
    Example;
    Modus Ponens, or the Law of Detachment
    Rules of inference
    p
    p q q

    Given p is true and the implication p q is true then q is true.


    Tautology Form: (p (p q)) q

    You might also like