First-Order Logic

Limitations of propositional logic

• Suppose you want to say “All humans are mortal”
– In propositional logic, you would need
~6.7 billion statements
• Suppose you want to say “Some people can run a
marathon”
– You would need a disjunction of ~6.7 billion
statements
 First-order logic
• Propositional logic assumes the world consists
of atomic facts
• First-order logic assumes the world contains
objects, relations, and functions
 Syntax of FOL
• Constants: John, Sally, 2, ...
• Variables: x, y, a, b,...
• Predicates: Person(John), Siblings(John, Sally), IsOdd(2), ...
• Functions: MotherOf(John), Sqrt(x), ...
• Connectives: , , , , 
• Equality: =
• Quantifiers: , 

• Term: Constant or Variable or Function(Term1, ... , Termn)

• Atomic sentence: Predicate(Term1, ... , Termn) or Term1 = Term2
• Complex sentence: made from atomic sentences using connectives
and quantifiers
 Semantics of FOL
• Sentences are true with respect to a model and an
interpretation
• Model contains objects (domain elements) and relations
among them
• Interpretation specifies referents for
constant symbols → objects
predicate symbols → relations
function symbols → functional relations

• An atomic sentence Predicate(Term1, ... , Termn) is true

iff the objects referred to by Term1, ... , Termn are in the
relation referred to by predicate
 Universal quantification
• x P(x)

• Example: “Everyone at UNC is smart”

x At(x,UNC)  Smart(x)
Why not x At(x,UNC)  Smart(x)?

• Roughly speaking, equivalent to the conjunction of all

possible instantiations of the variable:
At(John, UNC)  Smart(John)  ...
At(Richard, UNC)  Smart(Richard)  ...

• x P(x) is true in a model m iff P(x) is true with x being

each possible object in the model
 Existential quantification
• x P(x)

• Example: “Someone at UNC is smart”

x At(x,UNC)  Smart(x)
Why not x At(x,UNC)  Smart(x)?

• Roughly speaking, equivalent to the disjunction of all

possible instantiations:
[At(John,UNC)  Smart(John)] 
[At(Richard,UNC)  Smart(Richard)]  …

• x P(x) is true in a model m iff P(x) is true with x being

some possible object in the model
 Properties of quantifiers
• x y is the same as y x
• x y is the same as y x
• x y is not the same as y x
x y Loves(x,y)
“There is a person who loves everyone”
y x Loves(x,y)
“Everyone is loved by at least one person”

• Quantifier duality: each quantifier can be expressed using

the other with the help of negation
x Likes(x,IceCream) x Likes(x,IceCream)
x Likes(x,Broccoli) x Likes(x,Broccoli)
 Equality
• Term1 = Term2 is true under a given model if and
only if Term1 and Term2 refer to the same object

• E.g., definition of Sibling in terms of Parent:

x,y Sibling(x,y) 
[(x = y)  m,f  (m = f)  Parent(m,x) 
Parent(f,x)  Parent(m,y)  Parent(f,y)]
Using FOL: The Kinship Domain
• Brothers are siblings
x,y Brother(x,y)  Sibling(x,y)
• “Sibling” is symmetric
x,y Sibling(x,y)  Sibling(y,x)
• One's mother is one's female parent
m,c (Mother(c) = m)  (Female(m)  Parent(m,c))
 Why “First order”?
• FOL permits quantification over variables
• Higher order logics permit quantification
over functions and predicates:
P,x [P(x)  P(x)]
x,y (x=y)  [P (P(x)P(y))]
 Inference in FOL
• All rules of inference for propositional logic apply
to first-order logic
• We just need to reduce FOL sentences to PL
sentences by instantiating variables and
removing quantifiers
• https://
www.javatpoint.com/ai-inference-in-first-order-lo
gic
• https://
www.javatpoint.com/forward-chaining-and-back
ward-chaining-in-ai
 Reduction of FOL to PL
• Suppose the KB contains the following:
x King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x)
King(John) Greedy(John) Brother(Richard,John)
• How can we reduce this to PL?
• Let’s instantiate the universal sentence in all possible ways:
King(John)  Greedy(John)  Evil(John)
King(Richard)  Greedy(Richard)  Evil(Richard)
King(John) Greedy(John) Brother(Richard,John)
• The KB is propositionalized
– Proposition symbols are King(John), Greedy(John), Evil(John),
King(Richard), etc.
 Reduction of FOL to PL
• What about existential quantification, e.g.,
x Crown(x)  OnHead(x,John) ?
• Let’s instantiate the sentence with a new constant that
doesn’t appear anywhere in the KB:
Crown(C1)  OnHead(C1,John)
 Substitution
• Substitution of variables by ground terms:

SUBST({v/g},P)

– Result of SUBST({x/Harry, y/Sally}, Loves(x,y)):

Loves(Harry,Sally)

– Result of SUBST({x/John}, King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x)):

King(John)  Greedy(John)  Evil(John)
 Universal instantiation (UI)
• A universally quantified sentence entails every
instantiation of it:
• v P(v)
SUBST({v/g}, P(v))

for any variable v and ground term g

• E.g., x King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x) yields:

King(John)  Greedy(John)  Evil(John)
King(Richard)  Greedy(Richard)  Evil(Richard)
King(Father(John))  Greedy(Father(John)) 
Evil(Father(John))
 Existential instantiation (EI)
• An existentially quantified sentence entails the
instantiation of that sentence with a new constant:
v P(v)
SUBST({v/C}, P(v))
for any sentence P, variable v, and constant C that does
not appear elsewhere in the knowledge base

• E.g., x Crown(x)  OnHead(x,John) yields:

• Crown(C1)  OnHead(C1,John)

provided C1 is a new constant symbol, called a Skolem

constant
 Propositionalization
• Every FOL KB can be propositionalized so as to preserve
entailment
– A ground sentence is entailed by the new KB iff it is
entailed by the original KB

• Idea: propositionalize KB and query, apply resolution,

return result

• Problem: with function symbols, there are infinitely many

ground terms
– For example, Father(X) yields Father(John),
Father(Father(John)), Father(Father(Father(John))), etc.
 Propositionalization
• Theorem (Herbrand 1930):
– If a sentence α is entailed by an FOL KB, it is entailed by a finite
subset of the propositionalized KB

• Idea: For n = 0 to Infinity do

– Create a propositional KB by instantiating with depth-n terms
– See if α is entailed by this KB

• Problem: works if α is entailed, loops if α is not entailed

• Theorem (Turing 1936, Church 1936):

– Entailment for FOL is semidecidable: algorithms exist that say
yes to every entailed sentence, but no algorithm exists that also
says no to every nonentailed sentence
Review: FOL inference
 Propositionalization
• Example KB:
x King(x)  Greedy(x)  Evil(x) y Greedy(y)
King(John) Brother(Richard,John)

• What will propositionalization produce?

King(John)  Greedy(John)  Evil(John)
King(Richard)  Greedy(Richard)  Evil(Richard)
Greedy(John) Greedy(Richard)
King(John) Brother(Richard,John)

• But what if all we want is to prove Evil(John)?

 Generalized Modus Ponens
(GMP)
p1', p2', … , pn', (p1  p2  …  pn q)
such that SUBST(θ, pi')= SUBST(θ, pi) for all i
SUBST(θ,q)

• Used with definite clauses (exactly one positive literal)

• All variables assumed universally quantified

• Example:
p1' is King(John) p1 is King(x)
p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)
θ is {x/John,y/John}
q is Evil(x)
SUBST(θ,q) is Evil(John)
 Unification
UNIFY(α,β) = θ means that SUBST(θ, α) = SUBST(θ, β)

p q θ
Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}
Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mary) {x/Mary, y/John}
Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) {y/John, x/Mother(John)}
Knows(John,x) Knows(x,Mary) {x1/John, x2/Mary}
Knows(John,x) Knows(y,z) {y/John, x/z}

• Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables

• Most general unifier
 Inference with GMP
p1', p2', … , pn', (p1  p2  …  pn q)
such that SUBST(θ, pi')= SUBST(θ, pi) for all i
SUBST(θ,q)

• Forward chaining
– Like search: keep proving new things and adding them to
the KB until we can prove q

• Backward chaining
– Find p1, …, pn such that knowing them would prove q
– Recursively try to prove p1, …, pn
 Example knowledge base
• The law says that it is a crime for an American to sell
weapons to hostile nations. The country Nono, an
enemy of America, has some missiles, and all of its
missiles were sold to it by Colonel West, who is
American.

• Prove that Col. West is a criminal

 Example knowledge base
It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:
American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)
Nono has some missiles
x Owns(Nono,x)  Missile(x)
Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
All of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missiles are weapons:
Missile(x)  Weapon(x)
An enemy of America counts as “hostile”:
Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
West is American
American(West)
The country Nono is an enemy of America
Enemy(Nono,America)
 Forward chaining proof

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
 Forward chaining proof

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
 Forward chaining proof

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
Backward chaining example

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
Backward chaining example

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
Backward chaining example

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
Backward chaining example

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
Backward chaining example

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
Backward chaining example

American(x)  Weapon(y)  Sells(x,y,z)  Hostile(z)  Criminal(x)

Owns(Nono,M1)  Missile(M1)
Missile(x)  Owns(Nono,x)  Sells(West,x,Nono)
Missile(x)  Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America)  Hostile(x)
American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)
Backward chaining algorithm
 Resolution: FOL version
p1  ···  pk, q1  ···  qn
such that UNIFY(pi, qj) = θ
SUBST(θ, p1  ···  pi-1  pi+1  ···  pk  q1  ···  qj-1  qj+1  ···  qn)

• For example,
Rich(x)  Unhappy(x)
Rich(Ken)
Unhappy(Ken)

with θ = {x/Ken}

• Apply resolution steps to CNF(KB  α); complete for FOL

Resolution proof: definite clauses