Scribd
Upload
119 views

Tutorial For First Order Predicate Logic I - Lecture6

The document provides examples and explanations for concepts in first-order predicate logic, including: 1) How universal instantiation allows inferring a formula with a ground term from a universal quantification, like inferring p(a) from ∀X p(X). 2) Why ∀X p(X) entails p(t) for any term t that is free for X in p. 3) Examples of valid and invalid formulae involving quantifiers and predicates. 4) Explanations of satisfiability and logical consequence, illustrated with examples of satisfiable and unsatisfiable formulae.

Uploaded by

theresa.painter
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
119 views

Tutorial For First Order Predicate Logic I - Lecture6

The document provides examples and explanations for concepts in first-order predicate logic, including: 1) How universal instantiation allows inferring a formula with a ground term from a universal quantification, like inferring p(a) from ∀X p(X). 2) Why ∀X p(X) entails p(t) for any term t that is free for X in p. 3) Examples of valid and invalid formulae involving quantifiers and predicates. 4) Explanations of satisfiability and logical consequence, illustrated with examples of satisfiable and unsatisfiable formulae.

Uploaded by

theresa.painter
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Tutorial for Lecture #6 (First-order Predicate Logic I)

Let predicate fool(X,Y) means that X can fool Y, and suppose that the universe of discourse is the set of all people in the world.

Express the following English sentences in First-order Predicate Logic 1) Everybody can fool Sompong. 2) Samak can fool everybody. 3) Everybody can fool somebody. 4) There is no one who can fool everybody. 5) Everyone can be fooled by somebody. 6) No one can fool both Taksin and Chuan. 7) Chaovalit can fool exactly two people. 8) There is exactly one person whom everybody can fool. 9) No one can fool himself or herself.

Solutions 1) X fool(X, sompong). 2) X fool(samak, X). 3) X Y fool(X,Y). 4) XY fool(X,Y). 5) X Y fool(Y, X). 6) X ( fool(X, taksin) fool(X, chuan) ) 7) X,Y [ fool(chaovalit, X) fool(chaovalit, Y) X Y Z ( fool(chaovalit, Z) ( Z = X Z = Y ) ) 8) X (Y1 fool(Y1, X) ) Z Y2 ( fool(Y2, Z) Z = X ) 9) X fool(X,X) ]

FOL Logical Consequences Examples Suppose that The set of constant symbols = { a, b, c }, The set of function symbols = { f, g }. The set of variable symbols = {X, Y}.

X p(X) |= p(t) for any term t.


where p is a predicate.

(Universal Instantiation)

Why? Consider interpretation I = ( {0, 1, 2}, {P}, {F, G, 0, 1, 2}) where P, F, G is assigned to p, f and g, respectively. Elements 0, 1 and 2 in the domain are assigned to a, b and c, resp. Suppose that F(0) = 0, F(1) = 1 and F(2) = 2, and similarly for G.

In the model theory,

X p(X) means that

for every element d {0, 1, 2}, P(d).

Thus, P(0), P(1), P(2), P(F(0)), P(F(1)), P(F(2)), P(G(0)), hold in I. So, X p(X) |= p(a) p(b) p(c) p(f(a)) p(f(b)) p(f(c)) p(g(a))

Also, X p(X) |= p(X) p(Y)

This is because any environment must map X and Y to some elements in {0,1,2}. The following is not correct.

XY p(X,Y) |= Y p(Y,Y)

Variable X is replaced by variable Y which already occurs under the scope of a quantifier.

Definition Given that A is a well-formed formula and t is a term. Term t is free for variable X in A if no free occurrence of X falls within the scope of Y or

Y where Y occurs in t.
Example a) Y is not free for X in Y p(X,Y). b) Z is free for X in Y p(X,Y).

The following is the universal instantiation for general case.

X P(X) |= P(t)

for any term t that is free for X in P.

where P stands for any formula.

The following is called the existential generalization.

p(c) |= X p(X)

for any ground term c (Existential Generalization)

where p is a predicate. 3

Example Valid formulae a)x ( study(x, english) study(x, programming) )


( x study(x, english) ) ( x study(x, programming) )

b) It is not true that

x ( study(x, english) study(x, programming) )


(x study(x, english) ) ( x study(x, programming) )

Consider the following: D = { john , marry } study (john, english) study (marry, programming) Clearly, x ( study(x, english) study(x, programming) ) is true, but (x study(x, english) ) ( x study(x, programming) ) is not true

c) It is not true that ( x study(x, english) ) ( x study(x, programming) )


x ( study(x, english) study(x, programming) )

Consider the following: D = { john , marry } study ( john, english) study ( marry, programming) Clearly, ( x study(x, english) ) ( x study(x, programming) ) is true, but x ( study(x, english) study(x, programming) ) is not true d) x ( study(x, english) study(x, programming) )
(x study(x, english) ) (x study(x, programming) )

e) xy p(x,y) yx p(x,y)

Consider the following:

xy study(x,y) yx study(x,y)
Subject = { english, programming, math } Students = { john, marry, tom } study (john, english) study (john, programming) study (john, math) Cleary, xy study(x,y) is true , so inyx study(x,y) is true

Example Satisfiability a) x p(x) b) x p(x) c) x p(x) y p(y) d) x,y ( p(x,y) p(x,y) ) e) xy ( p(x) p(y) ) Solution a, b, d is satisfiable c is not satisfiable e is satisfiable because the formula is equivalent to
( (x p(x) ) (y p(y)) )

Consider the following: D = { a, b } P(a) holds but P(b) do not where P is assigned to p

Logical Consequence

x p(x) |= x p(x)
5

You might also like