• To solve complex problems we need:

1. Large amount of knowledge

2. Mechanism for representation and manipulation
of existing knowledge to create new solution.

Knowledge Representation
– Facts: Things we want to represent. Truth in
some relevant world.
– Representation of facts.
Representation and Mapping

reasoning

Internal programs
Facts
Representations

English English
understanding generation

English
Representations
desired real reasoning
Initial Final

facts facts
forward backward
representation representation
mapping mapping

Internal Internal
representations representations
of initial facts operation of final facts
of program
Representation and Mapping
• Spot is a dog

• Every dog has a tail

Spot has a tail

4
 Representation and Mapping
with Predicate Logic
• Spot is a dog
dog(Spot)

• Every dog has a tail

x: dog(x)  hastail(x)

hastail(Spot)
Spot has a tail
5
• Fact-representation mapping is not one-to-one.

• Good representation can make a reasoning program

trivial.

The Multilated Checkerboard Problem

“Consider a normal checker board from which two
squares, in opposite corners, have been
removed.
The task is to cover all the remaining squares exactly
with donimoes, each of which covers two squares. No
overlapping, either of dominoes on top of each other or
of dominoes over the boundary of the multilated board
are allowed. 7

Can this task be done?”

Representation and Mapping

No. black squares

= 30

No. white square

= 32

8
Good Knowledge representation should exhibit:
1. Representational adequacy-
Ability to represent all kinds of knowledge that are needed in the
domain.
2. Inferential adequacy-
Ability to manipulate representational structures such that new
knowledge can be derived/inferred from the old.
3. Inferential efficiency-
Ability to incorporate additional information into an existing
knowledge base that can be used to focus the attention of inference
mechanisms in the most promising direction.
4. Acquisitional efficiency-
Ability to easily acquire new information. 9
 Approaches to KR
1. Simple relational knowledge:
• Provides very weak inferential capabilities.
• May serve as the input to powerful inference engines.
Player Height Weight handed
Peter 6-0 180 right
Ajay 5-10 170 left
John 6-2 215 left
Vickey 6-3 205 right

Fails to infer “which right handed player can best face a

particular bowler” .

10
Approaches to KR
Inheritable knowledge:
• Objects are organized into classes and classes are
organized in a generalization hierarchy.
• Inheritance is a powerful form of inference, but not
adequate.
• Ex. Property inheritance inference mechanism.

is handed
Adult male a Person Right

instanc
e

Peter Tata Consultancy 11

Works_a
Approaches to KR

Procedural knowledge:
• Representation of “how to make it” rather than “what
it is”.
• May have inferential efficiency, but no inferential
adequacy and acquisitional efficiency.
• Ex. Writing LISP programs

11
Approaches to KR

Inferential knowledge:
• Facts represented in a logical form, which facilitates
reasoning.
• An inference engine is required.

ex. 1. “Marcus is a man”

2. “All men are mortal”
Implies:
3. “Marcus is mortal” 12
Issues in KR
1. Important Attributes: Isa and instance attributes.
2. Relationships among attributes: inverses, existence in a Isa
hierarchy, single-valued attributes, techniques for reasoning
about values.
3.Choosing the Granularity: High-level facts may not be adequate
for inference. Low-level primitives may require a lot of storage.
• Ex: “john spotted sue”
[representation: spotted(agent(john),object(sue))]
Q1: “who spotted Ans1: “john”.
sue?” Q2: “Did john see Ans2: NO ANSWER!!!!
• Add detailed fact: spotted(x,y)-->saw(x,y)
sue?” then Ans2:
“Yes”.
13
• 4.Representing Set of Objects:
• 5. finding the right structure as needed.:

Ex: word “fly” can have multiple meanings:

1. “John flew to new york”
2. “John flew into a rage” [idiom]
3. “john flew a kite”

SELF: Please read frame problem pg. 96-97, Rich & Knight,3rd
edition.

14
Propositional logic
• Statements used in mathematics.
• Proposition :is a declarative sentence whose value is
either true or false.

Examples:
• “The sky is blue.” [Atomic Proposition]
• “The sky is blue and the plants are green.”
[Molecular/Complex Proposition]
• “Today is a rainy day” [Atomic
Proposition]
• “Today is Sunday” [Atomic Proposition]
• “ 2*2=4” [Atomic Proposition]
15
 Terminologies in propositional algebra:
Statement: sentence that can be true/false.

Properties of statement:
 Satisfyability: a sentence is satisfyable if there is
an
interpretation for which it is true.
Eg.”we wear woollen cloths”

 Contradiction: if there is no interpretation for which

sentence is true.
Eg. “Japan is capital of India”
 Validity: a sentence is valid if it is true for every
interpretation.
Eg. “Delhi is the capital of India” 17
Inference rules:

17
18
 INFERENCE RULES IN PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC
1. Idempotent rule:
P ˄ P ==> P
P ˅ P ==>
2. Commutative rule:
P
P ˄ Q ==> Q ˄ P
P ˅ Q ==> Q ˅
P
3.Associative rule:
P ˄ (Q ˄ R) ==> (P ˄ Q) ˄ R
P ˅ (Q ˅ R) ==> (P ˅ Q) ˅ 19
4. Distributive Rule:
P ˅ (Q ˄ R) ==> (P ˅ Q) ˄ (P ˅ R)
P ˄ (Q ˅ R) ==> (P ˄ Q) ˅ (P ˄
R)

5. De-Morgan’s Rule:
‫(ך‬P ˅ Q) ==> ‫ך‬P ˄
‫ך‬Q ‫( ך‬P ˄ Q) ==> ‫ ך‬P
˅ ‫ך‬Q
6. Implication elimination:
P  Q => ‫ך‬P ˅ Q 20
7. Bidirectional Implication elimination:
( P  Q ) ==> ( P  Q ) ˄ (Q  P)
8. Contrapositive rule:
P  Q => ‫ך‬P  ‫ך‬Q
9. Double Negation rule:
‫ך (ך‬P) => P
10. Absorption Rule:
P ˅ ( P ˄ Q) => P
P ˄ ( P ˅ Q) =>
P
21
11.Fundamental identities:
P ˄ ‫ ך‬p => F [contradiction]
P ˅ ‫ך‬P
=> T [Tautology]
P ˅ T => P
P ˅ F => P
P ˅ ‫ ך‬T => P

P ˄ F => F
P ˄ T =>
P 22
12. Modus Ponens:
If P is true and PQ then we can infer Q is also
true.
P
PQ

Hence, Q

13. Modus Tollens:

If ‫ך‬P is true and PQ then we can infer ‫ך‬Q .
‫ך‬P
PQ
Hence, 24
‫ך‬Q
14. Chain rule:
If pq and qr then pr

15. Disjunctive Syllogism:

if ‫ך‬p and p˅q we can infer q is true.

16. AND elimination:

Given P and Q are true then we can deduce P and
seperately:
Q P˄QP
P ˄ Q Q
24
17. AND introduction:
Given P and Q are true then we deduce P ˄ Q

18. OR introduction:
Given P and Q are true then we can deduce P and
Q separately:
P P ˅ Q
Q P ˅ Q

25
• Example:
“I will get wet if it rains and I go out of the house”

Let Propositions be:

W : “I will get wet “
R : “it rains “
S: “I go out of the house”

(S ˄ R)  W

26
Using Propositional Logic

Representing simple facts

It is
raining
RAINING
It is
sunny
SUNNY
It is
windy
WINDY
If it is
raining,
27
then it is
Normal Forms in propositional Logic
1. Conjunctive normal form (CNF):

e.g. ( P ˅ Q ˅ R ) ˄ (P ˅ Q ) ˄ (P ˅ R )

˄ P It is conjunction (˄) of disjunctions (˅)

Where disjunctions are:

1. ( P ˅ Q ˅ R )
2. (P ˅ Q )
3. (P ˅ R ) clauses
4. P

28
2. Disjunctive normal form (DNF):

e.g. ( P ˄ Q ˄ R ) ˅ (P ˄ Q ) ˅
(P ˄ R ) ˅ P

It is disjunction (˅) of conjunctions (˄)

29
 Procedure to convert a statement to CNF
1. Eliminate implications and biconditionals using formulas:
• ( P  Q ) ==> ( P  Q ) ˄ (Q  P)
• P  Q => ‫ך‬P ˅ Q

2. Apply De-Morgan’s Law and reduce NOT symbols so as to bring negations

before the atoms. Use:
• ‫(ך‬P ˅ Q) ==> ‫ך‬P ˄ ‫ך‬Q
• ‫( ך‬P ˄ Q) ==> ‫ ך‬P ˅ ‫ך‬Q

3. Use distributive and other laws & equivalent formulas to obtain Normal
forms.

30
Conversion to CNF example
Q. Convert into CNF :
( ( PQ )R ) Solution:

Step 1: ( ( PQ )R ) ==> ( ( ‫ך‬P ˅ Q)R)

==> ‫ך ( ך‬P ˅ Q) ˅ R

Step ‫ך ( ך‬P ˅ Q) ˅ ==> (P ˄ ‫ ך‬Q ) ˅

2: R R
Step 3: (P ˄ ‫ ך‬Q ) ˅ ==> ( P ˅ R ) ˄ (‫ ך‬Q ˅ R )
R

CNF
31
Resolution in propositional logic
Proof by Refutation / contradiction.
• Used for theorem proving / rule of inference.

• Method: Say we have to prove proposition A

• Assume A to be false i.e. ‫ך‬A
• Continue solving the algorithm starting from ‫ך‬A
• If you get a contradiction (F) at the end it means your initial
assumption i.e. ‫ך‬A is false and hence proposition A
must be true.

• Clause: disjunction of literals is called clause.

32
• How it works?
• E.g. “ If it is Hot then it is Humid. If it is humid then it will rain. It
is hot.” prove that “ it will rain.”

• Solution:
• Let us denote these statements with propositions H,O and R:
– H: “ It is humid”.
– O: “ It is Hot”. And R: “It will rain”.

• Formulas corresponding to the sentences are:

• 1. “if it is hot then it is humid” [ OH] ==> ‫ך‬O ˅ H
• 2. “If it is humid then it will rain”. [ HR] ==> ‫ך‬H ˅ R
• 3. “ It is Hot” [O] ==> O
•
• To prove: R.
33
• Let us assume “it will NOT rain” [ ‫ך‬R
]
• [ ‫ך‬R ] [ ‫ך‬H ˅ R]

‫ך‬H [ ‫ך‬O ˅
H]

‫ך‬O O

E [EMPTY CLAUSE / CONTRADICTION ]

34
• Since an empty clause ( E ) has been deduced we say that
our assumption is wrong and hence we have proved:
“It will rain”

Using Prepositional Logic:

• Theorem proving is decidable BUT

• It Cannot represent objects and

quantification.

• Hence we go for PREDICATE LOGIC

35
 PREDICATE LOGIC

• Can represent objects and

quantification

• Theorem proving is semi-decidable

36
Representing simple facts
(Preposition) “SOCRATES IS A
SOCRATESMAN ---------
MAN” 1
“PLATO IS A
MAN” ---------
PLATOMAN 2
Fails to capture relationship between Socrates and
man. We do not get any information about the
objects involved Ex:
if asked a question : “who is a man?” we
cannot get
answer.

Using Predicate Logic however we can represent above

facts as: Man(Socretes) and Man(Plato)
37
Using Predicate Logic

1. Marcus was a
man.
man(Marcus)

38
Using Predicate Logic

2. Marcus was a
Pompeian.
Pompeian(Marcus)

39
• Quantifiers:
• 2 types:-

• Universal quantifier ()

• x: means “for all” x

• It is used to represent phrase “ for all”.
• It says that something is true for all possible values of
a variable.

• Ex. “ John loves everyone”

•

40
• Quantifiers:
• 2 types:-

• Universal quantifier ()

• x: means “for all” x

• It is used to represent phrase “ for all”.
• It says that something is true for all possible values of
a variable.

• Ex. “ John loves everyone”

x: loves(John , x)

41
• Existential quantifier (  ):

• Used to represent the fact “ there exists some”

• Ex:
• “some people like reading and hence they gain good
knowledge”

 x: { [person(x)  like (x , reading)] gain(x, knowledge) }

• “lord Haggins has a crown on his head”

•  x: crown(x)  onhead (x , Haggins)

42
 Nested Quantifiers
• We can use both  and  seperately

• Ex: “ everybody loves somebody ”

x: y: loves ( x

, y)

• Connection between  and 

• “ everyone dislikes garlic”
 x:  like ( x ,
garlic )
 This can be also said as:
“there does not exists someone who likes garlic”43
3. All Romans were either loyal to Caesar or hated him.

x: Roman(x)  loyalto (x, Caesar)  hate(x, Caesar)

4. Every one is loyal to someone.

x: y: loyalto(x, y) y: x: loyalto(x, y)
5. People only try to assassinate rulers they are not loyal to.
x: y: person(x)  ruler(y)  tryassassinate(x, y)
 loyalto(x, y)

44
6. “All Pompeians were Romans”
x: Pompeian(x)  Roman(x)

8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar.

tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)

45
Some more examples
• “all indoor games are easy”
x: indoor_game( x)  easy(x)

• “Rajiv likes only cricket”

Like(Rajiv, Cricket)

• “Any person who is respected by every person is a king”

x:y: { person(x)  person(y)  respects (y ,x) king( x)}

46
• ““god helps those who helps themselves”
• x: helps( god, helps(x , x))

• “everyone who loves all animals is loved by

someone”
x: [ y: animal (y) 
loves( x , y) ]
everyone who loves all animals

z: loves( z , x ) there exist someone z and z

loves x Thus the predicate sentence is:

x: [ [y: animal (y)  loves( x , y) ]  [ z: loves( z , x ) ] ]

47
Computable functions and predicates
• “ Marcus was born in 40 A.D”
Born( Marcus, 40)

• “ All Pompeians died when volcano erupted in 79 A.D”

Erupted(volcano, 79)  x: [ Pompeian (x )  Died (x , 79)]

• “ no mortal lives longer than 150 years”

• How to solve ?
• let t1 is time instance 1 and t2 is time instance 2
• We use computable function gt( … , ….) which
computes greater than.

x: t1: t2: mortal (x)  born ( x, t1)  gt( t2 –t1,

49
150 )  dead ( x,
Resolution algorithm in predicate
logic
• Proof by refutation.
• INPUT: Predicate sentences in clausal form (CNF)
• (See conversion algo on next slide)

• Algorithm steps :-

Convert all the propositions of KB to clause form (S).

2. Negate  and convert it to clause form. Add it to S.
3. Repeat until either a contradiction is found or no progress can be made.
a. Select two clauses (  P) and (   P).
b. Add the resolvent (  ) to S.

49
Conversion to Clause Form
1. Eliminate .
P  Q  P  Q
2. Reduce the scope of each  to a single term.
(P  Q)  P  Q
(P  Q)  P  Q

x: P  x: P
x: p  x: P

 P  P

3. Standardize variables so that each quantifier binds a unique variable.

(x: P(x))  (x: Q(x)) 

(x: P(x))  (y: Q(y))

50
 4. Move all quantifiers to the left without changing their relative
order.
(x: P(x))  (y: Q(y))

x: y: (P(x)  (Q(y))
5. Eliminate  (Skolemization).
x: P(x)  P(c) Skolem
constant
x: y P(x, y)  x: P(x, Skolem
f(x)) function

6. Drop .
x: P(x) 
P(x)

51
7. Convert the formula into a conjunction of disjuncts.
(P  Q)  R  (P  R)  (Q  R)

8. Create a separate clause corresponding to each conjunct.

9. Standardize apart the variables in the set of obtained

clauses.

52
• Example of conversion:
x:  [ Roman (x)  ( Pompeian( x)   hate ( x,
Caesar))]
After step 1: i.e. elimination of  and  the above stmt
becomes:

x:  [  Roman (x)  (Pompeian( x)   hate ( x,

Caesar))]

After step 2: i.e. reducing scope of  the above stmt

becomes:

x: [ Roman (x)  (Pompeian( x)   hate ( x, Caesar)) ]

53
• Example to demonstrate step 3:- i.e. standardization of
variables.

x: [ [y: animal (y)  loves( x , y) ]  [ y:

loves( y , x ) ]
]

After step 3 above stmt becomes,

x: [ [y: animal (y)  loves( x , y) ]  [ z: loves( z, x )

] ]

54
• Example to demostrate step 4: Move all quantifiers to the left
without changing their relative order.
•
• x: [ [y: animal (y)  loves( x , y) ]  [ z: loves( z, x )
] ]

• After applying step 4 above stmt becomes:

• x: y: z: [ animal (y)  loves( x , y)  loves( z, x ) ]

• After first 4 processing steps of conversion are carried

out on original statement S, the statement is said to be in
PRENEX NORMAL FORM

55
• Example to demostrate step 5: skolemization ( i.e. elimination
of  quantifier )

y: President (y)

Can be transformed into
President (S1)
where S1 is a function that somehow producesa value
that satisfies President (S1) – S1 called as Skolem
constant

• Ex. 2:
y: x:
leads
(y,x )
Here value of yWhere
that satisfies ‘leads’ depends on particular
f(x) is skolem 57
value offunction.
x hence above stmt can be written as:
• Example to demonstrate step 6: dropping prefix 

x: y: z: [ Roman (x)  know ( x, y)  hate( y, z)]

• After prefix dropped becomes,

[ Roman (x)  know ( x, y)  hate( y, z)]

57
• Example to demostrate step 7: Convert the formula into a
conjunction of disjuncts.(CNF)

• Roman (x)  ( ( hate (x , caesar)  loyalto ( x ,

caesar) )

• Roman (x)  ( ( hate (x , caesar)  loyalto ( x ,

caesar) ) P Q R

• P (Q  R )  ( P  Q )  (P  R )

CLAUSE 1 ( Roman (x)  ( hate (x , caesar) ) 

CLAUSE 2 ( Roman (x)  loyalto ( x , caesar) )
58
Unification
• It’s a matching procedure that compares two literals and
discovers whether there exists a set of substitutions that can make
them identical.

• E.g.
Hate( marcus , X) Hate (marcus , caesar)

caesar/ X

e.g. 2.

Hate(X,Y) Hate( john, Z) could be unified as:

John/X and y/z

59
Unification:
UNIFY(p, q) = unifier  where SUBST(, p) = SUBST(, q)

x: knows(John, x)  hates(John, x)

knows(John, Jane)
y: knows(y, Leonid)
y: knows(y, mother(y))
x: knows(x, Elizabeth)

UNIFY(knows(John ,x) ,knows(John, Jane)) = {Jane/x}

UNIFY(knows(John, x), knows(y, Leonid)) = {Leonid/x, John/y}
UNIFY(knows(John, x), knows(y, mother(y))) = {John/y,
mother(John)/x}
UNIFY(knows(John, x), knows(x, Elizabeth)) = FAIL

60
 Resolution algorithm
• It is used as inference mechanism.
• Pre-processing steps:
1. Convert the given English sentence into predicate sentence.
2. Not all of these sentences will be in clausal form (CNF).
If any sentence is not in clausal form then convert it into clausal form.
3. Give these sentences (clauses) as an input to resolution
algorithm.

Resolution algorithm steps:

A. Negate the proposition which is to be proved.
i.e. If we have to prove :-
like(tommy , cookies) then assume 
like(tommy,cookies) Add the resultant sentence to the set of
sentences from step 3
61
B. Repeat until contradiction is found or no progress can be
made:
i. Select two clauses , call them parent clauses and resolve
them together.
The resultant clause is called resolvant.

e.g. P(x)  Q(x) R(x)   P(X)

Q(x)  R(x)

ii. If resolvant contains empty clause then contradiction has

been found.

G(x)  G(x)
E [ EMPTY 63

CLAUSE]
iii. If step ii. Results in empty clause , it means our
assumption is wrong
and the original clause (to be proved) has to be true.

63
 Example
1. Marcus was a man.
2. Marcus was a Pompeian.
3. All Pompeians were Romans.
4. Caesar was a ruler.
5. All Pompeians were either loyal to Caesar or hated him.
6. Every one is loyal to someone.
7. People only try to assassinate rulers they are not loyal to.
8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar.

64
1. “Marcus was a man”

man(marcus)
------------- 1

2. “Marcus was a Pompeian”

pompeian (marcus) ------------- 2

3. “All Pompeian's were Romans”

=> x1: pompeian(x1) 
roman(x1).
=> x1:  pompeian(x1)  roman(x1)
 pompeian (x1)  roman(x1)
----------------- 3
65
4. “Caesar was a ruler”
ruler (caesar)
---------------- 4

5. “all romans were either loyalto caesar or hated him”

=> x2: roman(x2)  [ loyalto(x2 , caesar)  hate(x2 ,
caesar) ]
=> x2:  roman(x2)  loyalto(x2 , caesar)  hate(x2 , caesar)
=>  roman(x2)  loyalto(x2 , caesar)  hate(x2 , caesar)
 roman ( x2)  loyalto (x2 , caesar)  hate (x2 , caesar) ------ 5

66
• “Every one is loyal to someone”
=> x3: y1: loyalto(x3, y1).

Let f(x3) be a skolem function then,

=> x3: loyalto(x3, f(x3)).

=> loyalto(x3, f(x3))

loyalto (x3, f(x3)) ---------------- 6

67
7. “People only try to assassinate rulers they are not loyal to.”

=> x4: y2: [man(x4)  ruler(y2)  tryassassinate(x4, y2) ]

 loyalto(x4, y2)

=> x4: y2:  [man(x4)  ruler(y2)  tryassassinate(x4, y2) ]

 loyalto(x4, y2)

 x4: y2:  man(x4)   ruler(y2)   tryassassinate(x4, y2) 

loyalto(x4, y2)

let f(x4) be skolem function then,

 => x4:  man(x4)   ruler(f(x4)) 

 tryassassinate(x4, f(x4))  loyalto(x4, f(x4)) 69
  man(x4)   ruler(f(x4))   tryassassinate(x4, f(x4)) 
loyalto(x4, f(x4))

 man( x4)   ruler(f(x4))   tryassassinate(x4, f(x4)) 

» ---------- 7
loyalto(x4, f(x4))

8. “Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar”

tryassassinate(marcus , caesar)

tryassassinate( marcus , caesar ) ------------ 8

To prove : marcus hate caesar i.e. hate(marcus, caesar)

70
 • Assume  hate(marcus, caesar)
(5)
‫ ך‬hate (marcus , caesar)  roman ( x2)  loyalto (x2 , caesar) 
hate (x2 , caesar)

x2 / marcus

 roman ( marcus)  loyalto (marcus, caesar)

 pompeian (x1) 
roman(x1)
(3)
x1 / marcus
(2)
pompeian (marcus)
 pompeian (marcus)  loyalto (marcus, caesar)

loyalto (marcus, 71
caesar)
 loyalto (marcus, caesar)
(7)

x4/ marcus
f(x4)/ caesar

 man( marcus)   ruler( caesar )   tryassassinate( marcus , caesar )

(8)
tryassassinate( marcus ,

caesar )

 man( marcus)   ruler( caesar )

(1)
man( marcu
s)
 ruler( caesar ) 72
  ruler( caesar )

(4)
ruler( caesar )

E
• Since we get an empty clause i.e. contradiction our assumption
that  hate(marcus, caesar) is false

hence
hate(marcus, caesar) must be true.

72
• Consider the following paragraph:
“ anything anyone eats is called food. Milka likes all kind of
food. Bread is a food. Mango is a food. Alka eats pizza. Alka
eats everything milka eats.”

Translate the following sentences into (WFF) in predicate logic

and then into set of clauses. Using resolution principle answer
the following:
1. Does Milka like pizza?
2. what food Alka eats? [ Question answering]

73
• Solution:
1. “ anything anyone eats is called food.”
x: y: eats(x , y)  food(y)
 x: y:  eats(x , y)  food(y)
  eats(x , y)  food(y)

(1)
2. “Milka likes all kind of food”
y1: food(y1)  like(milka , y1)
 y1:  food(y1)  like( milka , y1)
  food(y1)  like( milka , y1) (2)

3. “Bread is a food”
food(bread) (3)

4. “Mango is a food”
food( mango) (4)
75
5. “Alka eats Pizza”
eats( alka, pizza) (5)

6. “Alka eats everything Milka eats”

x1: eats(milka , x1)  eats(alka, x1)
=> x1:  eats(milka , x1)  eats(alka,
x1) (6)
=>  eats(milka , x1)  eats(alka, x1)

Question to be answered : 1. “Does Milka likes Pizza ?”

assume : “Milka does not like
Pizza” (7)
 like(milka , pizza)

76
 like(milka , (2)
pizza)  food(y1)  like( milka , y1)

pizza/ y1

 food(pizza)
(1)
eats(x , y)  food(y) pizza/
y

 eats(x , pizza)
(5)
eats( alka, pizza)
alka/
x

E 77
Sinc  like(milka , pizza) is contradiction like(milka , pizza) is
Question to be answered : 2. “ what
food Alka eats ?” eats( alka, ??)

there exist something which Alka eats we have to find the value of
x

x: eats ( alka, x)

Assume : alka does not eat anything

 [x2: eats ( alka, x2)]
=> x2:  eats (alka , x2)
=>  eats (alka , x2) (7)

(7) (5)
 eats (alka , x2) eats( alka, pizza)

pizza/ x2
78
E
• Therefore alka does not eat anything is false and
• Alka eats something is true.
• And x2 stores pizza

• Therefore we conclude :

eats ( alka, ??)

answer is

“pizza”

78
Instance and Isa relationship
• “ Marcus is a man”
man(marcus)
OR
instance( marcus , man) where marcus is an object/
instance of class
‘man’
“ all pompeians were romans”
x: pompeian(x) 
roman(x).
OR
x: instance(x,
pompeian) 
instance(x, roman).
79
• Isa Predicate :
“ all pompeians were romans”
x: pompeian(x)  roman(x).
OR
x: instance(x, pompeian)  instance(x,
roman).------(1)

• Now using isa predicate (1) becomes,

Isa( pompeian , roman)

which means pompeian is a subclass of roman class

but it also requires extra axiom :

81
x: y: z: isa( y, z)  instance (x , y)  instance ( x ,
Using Predicate Logic

• Many English sentences are ambiguous.

• There is often a choice of how to represent

knowledge.

• Obvious information may be necessary for

reasoning

• We may not know in advance which statements to

deduce (P or P).

81