Scribd
Upload
20 views

Problem Sheet 2: S. Krishna

Uploaded by

Varsha Yadav
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views

Problem Sheet 2: S. Krishna

Uploaded by

Varsha Yadav
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Logic in CS Autumn 2024

Problem Sheet 2
S. Krishna

1. An adequate set of connectives is a set such that for every formula there is an equivalent
formula with only connectives from that set. For example, {¬, ∨} is adequate for propositional
logic since any occurrence of ∧ and → can be removed using the equivalences
φ → ψ ≡ ¬φ ∨ ψ
φ ∧ ψ ≡ ¬(¬φ ∨ ¬ψ)
(a) Show that {¬, ∧}, {¬, →} and {→, ⊥} are adequate sets of connectives. (⊥ treated as a
nullary connective).
(b) Show that if C ⊆ {¬, ∧, ∨, →, ⊥} is adequate, then ¬ ∈ C or ⊥∈ C.

2. The binary connective nand, F ↓ G, is defined by the truth table corresponding to ¬(F ∧ G).
Show that nand is complete - that is, it can express all binary Boolean connectives.

3. The binary connective xor, F ⊕ G is defined by the truth table corresponding to (¬F ∧ G) ∨
(F ∧ ¬G). Show that xor is not complete - that is, it cannot express all binary Boolean
connectives.

4. If a contradiction can be derived from a set of formulae, then the set of formulae is said to be
inconsistent. Otherwise, the set of formulae is consistent. Let F be a set of formulae. Show
that F is consistent iff it is satisfiable.

5. Suppose F is an inconsistent set of formulae. For each G ∈ F, let FG be the set obtained by
removing G from F.
(a) Prove that for any G ∈ F, FG ⊢ ¬G, using the previous question.
(b) Prove this using a formal proof.

6. Consider a formula φ which is of the form C1 ∧ C2 ∧ . . . Cn where each clause Ci is of the


form (⊤ → α) or (α1 ∧ . . . αn → β) or (γ →⊥) where α, αi , β, γ are literals. A logician
wishes to apply HornSAT to this formula φ by renaming negative literals (if any) with fresh
positive literals. Thus, if any α, αi , β, γ was of the form ¬p, the logician will replace that ¬p
with a fresh variable p′ . The logician claims that he can check satisfiability of φ correctly
by applying HornSAT on the new formula (call it φ′ ) in the following way: φ is satisfiable iff
HornSAT concludes that φ′ is satisfiable, and φ is unsatisfiable iff HornSAT concludes that φ′
is unsatisfiable. Do you agree with the logician?

1
7. Using resolution, show that P1 ∧ P2 ∧ P3 is a consequence of

F := (¬P1 ∨ P2 ) ∧ (¬P2 ∨ P3 ) ∧ (P1 ∨ ¬P3 ) ∧ (P1 ∨ P2 ∨ P3 ) .

8. Show that the satisfiability of any 2-CNF formula can be checked in polynomial time.

9. Call a set of formulae minimal unsatisfiable iff it is unsatisfiable, but every proper subset is
satisfiable. Show that there exist minimal unsatisfiable sets of formulae of size n for each
n ≥ 1.

10. Consider a set Σ = {φ1 , φ2 , . . . } of propositional logic formulae (note that Σ may be infinite).
Show that Σ is unsatisfiable if and only if there exists a finite set Σ′ ⊆ Σ such that Σ′ is
unsatisfiable.

You might also like