Scribd
Upload
154 views

Resolution in First-Order Logic: Basic Steps For Proving A Conclusion Given Premises (All Expressed in FOL)

1. Resolution is a method for proving conclusions from premises expressed in first-order logic (FOL) by converting sentences to clause normal form and resolving clauses. 2. Examples show resolving clauses to derive contradictions and prove conclusions such as "Lulu is older than Fifi" from premises including "Mother(Lulu, Fifi)" and "Alive(Lulu)". 3. It is a mistake to first form a clause from the conclusion before denying it, as variables may not unify properly during resolution.

Uploaded by

20070645
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
154 views

Resolution in First-Order Logic: Basic Steps For Proving A Conclusion Given Premises (All Expressed in FOL)

1. Resolution is a method for proving conclusions from premises expressed in first-order logic (FOL) by converting sentences to clause normal form and resolving clauses. 2. Examples show resolving clauses to derive contradictions and prove conclusions such as "Lulu is older than Fifi" from premises including "Mother(Lulu, Fifi)" and "Alive(Lulu)". 3. It is a mistake to first form a clause from the conclusion before denying it, as variables may not unify properly during resolution.

Uploaded by

20070645
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Resolution in First-Order Logic

Basic steps for proving a conclusion S given premises Premise1, , Premisen (all expressed in FOL):
1. Convert all sentences to CNF 2. Negate conclusion S & convert result to CNF 3. Add negated conclusion S to the premise clauses 4. Repeat until contradiction or no progress is made: a. Select 2 clauses (call them parent clauses) b. Resolve them together, performing all required unifications c. If resolvent is the empty clause, a contradiction has been found (i.e., S follows from the premises) d. If not, add resolvent to the premises

If we succeed in Step 4, we have proved the conclusion

Resolution Examples
Example 1:
If something is intelligent, it has common sense Deep Blue does not have common sense Prove that Deep Blue is not intelligent 1. x.I(x) H(x) 2. H(D) Conclusion: I(D) Denial: C3: I(D) C1: I(x) H(x) C2: H(D)

CNF

A resolution proof of I(D):


I(x) H(x) {x/D} I(D) I(D) H(D)

Proof also written as: C4: I(D) C5:

2nd literal, 1st clause

r[C1b, C2] r[C3, C4]

Resolution Examples (cont.)


Example 2:
Premises: Mother(Lulu, Fifi) Alive(Lulu) Prove: Older(Lulu, Fifi) Denial: Older(Lulu, Fifi)

x y.Mother(x,y) Parent(x,y) x y.(Parent(x,y) Alive(x)) Older(x,y)

Mother(Lulu,Fifi)

Mother(x,y) Parent(x,y)
{x/Lulu,y/Fifi}

Parent(Lulu,Fifi)

Parent(x,y) Alive(x) Older(x,y)


{x/Lulu,y/Fifi}

Alive(Lulu) Older(Lulu, Fifi)

Alive(Lulu)

Older(Lulu, Fifi)

Older(Lulu, Fifi)

Resolution Examples (cont.)


Example 3:
Suppose the desired conclusion had been Something is older than Fifi x.Older(x, Fifi) Denial: x.Older(x, Fifi) also written as: x.Older(x, Fifi) in clause form: Older(x, Fifi) Last proof step would have been C8: Older(Lulu,Fifi) {x/Lulu} C5: Older(x, Fifi)

Dont make mistake of first forming clause from conclusion & then denying it:
Conclusion: x.Older(x, Fifi) clause form: Older(C, Fifi) denial: Older(C, Fifi) Cannot unify Lulu,C!!

Question-Answering
Example 1: Who is Lulu older than?
Prove that there is an x such that Lulu is older than x In FOL form: x.Older(Lulu, x) Denial: x.Older(Lulu, x) x.Older(Lulu, x) in clause form: Older(Lulu, x) Successful proof gives {x/Fifi} [Verify!!]

Example 2: What is older than what?


In FOL form: x y.Older(x, y) Denial: xy.Older(x, y) in clause form: Older(x, y) Successful proof gives {x/Lulu, y/Fifi} [Verify!!]

You might also like