0% found this document useful (0 votes)
68 views

First-Order Logic Syntax of FOL: - Objects, - Properties - Relations - Functions

This document summarizes the syntax and key concepts of first-order logic (FOL). It discusses: 1) The basic elements of FOL including objects, properties, relations, functions, constants, variables, predicates, and connectives. 2) How sentences are constructed in FOL using terms, atoms, and quantifiers. 3) Examples of how to translate English sentences to the syntax of FOL using quantifiers, variables, predicates, and connectives. 4) Key concepts including quantifier scope, the connections between universal and existential quantifiers, and common quantified inference rules.

Uploaded by

dokeos
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
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
68 views

First-Order Logic Syntax of FOL: - Objects, - Properties - Relations - Functions

This document summarizes the syntax and key concepts of first-order logic (FOL). It discusses: 1) The basic elements of FOL including objects, properties, relations, functions, constants, variables, predicates, and connectives. 2) How sentences are constructed in FOL using terms, atoms, and quantifiers. 3) Examples of how to translate English sentences to the syntax of FOL using quantifiers, variables, predicates, and connectives. 4) Key concepts including quantifier scope, the connections between universal and existential quantifiers, and common quantified inference rules.

Uploaded by

dokeos
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/ 7

First-order logic Syntax of FOL

S := <Sentence> ;
<Sentence> := <AtomicSentence> |
• First-order logic (FOL) models the world in terms of <Sentence> <Connective> <Sentence> |
– Objects, which are things with individual identities <Quantifier> <Variable>,... <Sentence> |
– Properties of objects that distinguish them from other objects "NOT" <Sentence> |
"(" <Sentence> ")";
– Relations that hold among sets of objects
<AtomicSentence> := <Predicate> "(" <Term>, ... ")" |
– Functions, which are a subset of relations where there is only one <Term> "=" <Term>;
“value” for any given “input” <Term> := <Function> "(" <Term>, ... ")" |
• Examples: <Constant> |
<Variable>;
– Objects: Students, lectures, companies, cars ...
<Connective> := "AND" | "OR" | "IMPLIES" | "EQUIVALENT";
– Relations: Brother-of, bigger-than, outside, part-of, has-color, <Quantifier> := "EXISTS" | "FORALL" ;
occurs-after, owns, visits, precedes, ... <Constant> := "A" | "X1" | "John" | ... ;
– Properties: blue, oval, even, large, ... <Variable> := "a" | "x" | "s" | ... ;
– Functions: father-of, best-friend, second-half, one-more-than ... <Predicate> := "Before" | "HasColor" | "Raining" | ... ;
<Function> := "Mother" | "LeftLegOf" | ... ;

Constants, Functions, Predicates Variables, Connectives,


Quantifiers
• Constant symbols, which represent individuals in the world • Variable symbols
– Mary – E.g., x, y, foo
–3 • Connectives
– Green
– Same as in PL: not (¬), and (!), or ("), implies (#), if
• Function symbols, which map individuals to individuals and only if (biconditional $)
– father-of(Mary) = John • Quantifiers
– color-of(Sky) = Blue – Universal %x or (Ax)
• Predicate symbols, which map individuals to truth values – Existential &x or (Ex)
– greater(5,3)
– green(Grass)
– color(Grass, Green)
Sentences are built from terms and atoms
Quantifiers
• A term (denoting a real-world individual) is a constant symbol, a
• Universal quantification
variable symbol, or an n-place function of n terms.
– (%x)P(x) means that P holds for all values of x in the
x and f(x1, ..., xn) are terms, where each xi is a term.
domain associated with that variable
A term with no variables is a ground term
– E.g., (%x) dolphin(x) # mammal(x)
• An atom (which has value true or false) is either
• Existential quantification
an n-place predicate of n terms, or,
– (& x)P(x) means that P holds for some value of x in the ¬P, P"Q, P!Q, P#Q, P$Q where P and Q are atoms
domain associated with that variable
– E.g., (& x) mammal(x) ! lays-eggs(x) • A sentence is an atom, or, if P is a sentence and x is a variable,
then (%x)P and (&x)P are sentences
– Permits one to make a statement about some object
without naming it • A well-formed formula (wff) is a sentence containing no “free”
variables. That is, all variables are “bound” by universal or
existential quantifiers.
(%x)P(x,y) has x bound as a universally quantified variable, but y is free.

Translating English to FOL Quantifiers


Every gardener likes the sun.
(%x) gardener(x) # likes(x,Sun)
• Universal quantifiers are often used with “implies” to form “rules”:
You can fool some of the people all of the time. (%x) student(x) # smart(x) means “All students are smart”
(&x)(%t) (person(x) ^ time(t)) # can-fool(x,t) • Universal quantification is rarely used to make blanket statements
You can fool all of the people some of the time.
(%x)(&t) (person(x) ^ time(t) # can-fool(x,t) about every individual in the world:
All purple mushrooms are poisonous. (%x)student(x)!smart(x) means “Everyone in the world is a student and is smart”
(%x) (mushroom(x) ^ purple(x)) # poisonous(x)
No purple mushroom is poisonous. • Existential quantifiers are usually used with “and” to specify a list of
¬(&x) purple(x) ^ mushroom(x) ^ poisonous(x) properties about an individual:
(%x) (mushroom(x) ^ purple(x)) # ¬poisonous(x) (&x) student(x) ! smart(x) means “There is a student who is smart”
There are exactly two purple mushrooms.
(&x)(&y) mushroom(x) ^ purple(x) ^ mushroom(y) ^ purple(y) ^ ¬(x=y) ^ • A common mistake is to represent this English sentence as the FOL
(% z) (mushroom(z) ^ purple(z)) # ((x=z) " (y=z)) sentence:
Clinton is not tall.
¬tall(Clinton)
(&x) student(x) # smart(x)
X is above Y if X is on directly on top of Y or there is a pile of one or more – But what happens when there is a person who is not a student?
other objects directly on top of one another starting with X and ending
with Y.
(%x)(%y) above(x,y) _ (on(x,y) v (&z) (on(x,z) ^ above(z,y)))
Quantifier Scope Connections between All and Exists

• Switching the order of universal quantifiers does not change the We can relate sentences involving % and &
meaning:
using De Morgan’s laws:
– (%x)(%y)P(x,y) '(%y)(%x) P(x,y)
• Similarly, you can switch the order of existential quantifiers: (%x) ¬P(x) '¬(&x) P(x)
– (&x)(&y)P(x,y) ' (&y)(&x) P(x,y) ¬(%x) P ' (&x) ¬P(x)
• Switching the order of universals and existentials does change meaning:
– Everyone likes someone: (%x)(&y) likes(x,y)
(%x) P(x) '¬ (&x) ¬P(x)
– Someone is liked by everyone: (&y)(%x) likes(x,y) (&x) P(x) '¬(%x) ¬P(x)

Quantified inference rules An example from Monty Python

• Universal instantiation • FIRST VILLAGER: We have found a witch. May we


– %x P(x) ( P(A) burn her?
• Universal generalization • ALL: A witch! Burn her!
– P(A) ! P(B) … ( %x P(x) • BEDEVERE: Why do you think she is a witch?
• Existential instantiation • SECOND VILLAGER: She turned me into a newt.
– &x P(x) (P(F) ) skolem constant F • B: A newt?
• Existential generalization • V2 (after looking at himself for some time): I got better.
– P(A) ( &x P(x) • ALL: Burn her anyway.
• B: Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a
witch.
Monty Python cont. Monty Python cont.
• B: Tell me… what do you do with witches? • B: So how can we tell if she is made of wood?
• ALL: Burn them! • V1: Make a bridge out of her.
• B: And what do you burn, apart from witches? • B: Ah… but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
• V4: …wood? • ALL: Yes, of course… um… er…
• B: Does wood sink in water?
• B: So why do witches burn?
• ALL: No, no, it floats. Throw her in the pond.
• V2 (pianissimo): because they’re made of wood?
• B: Wait. Wait… tell me, what also floats on water?
• B: Good.
• ALL: Bread? No, no no. Apples… gravy… very small
• ALL: I see. Yes, of course. rocks…
• B: No, no, no,

Monty Python cont. Monty Python Fallacy #1


• KING ARTHUR: A duck! • %x witch(x) # burns(x)
• (They all turn and look at Arthur. Bedevere looks up, very • %x wood(x) # burns(x)
impressed.) • -------------------------------
• B: Exactly. So… logically… • ( %z witch(x) # wood(x)
• V1 (beginning to pick up the thread): If she… weighs the
same as a duck… she’s made of wood. • p#q
• B: And therefore? • r#q
• ALL: A witch! • ---------
• p#r Fallacy: Affirming the conclusion
Monty Python Near-Fallacy #2 Monty Python Fallacy #3
• wood(x) # bridge(x) • %x wood(x) # floats(x)
• ------------------------------ • %x duck-weight (x) # floats(x)
• ( bridge(x) # wood(x) • -------------------------------
• ( %x duck-weight(x) # wood(x)

• p#q
• B: Ah… but can you not also make bridges out of stone? • r#q
• -----------
• (r#p

Axioms for Set Theory in FOL


Monty Python Fallacy #4 1. The only sets are the empty set and those made by adjoining something to a set:
%s set(s) <=> (s=EmptySet) v (&x,r Set(r) ^ s=Adjoin(s,r))
2. The empty set has no elements adjoined to it:
• %z light(z) # wood(z) ~ &x,s Adjoin(x,s)=EmptySet
• light(W) 3. Adjoining an element already in the set has no effect:
• ------------------------------ %x,s Member(x,s) <=> s=Adjoin(x,s)
4. The only members of a set are the elements that were adjoined into it:
• ( wood(W) ok…………..
%x,s Member(x,s) <=> &y,r (s=Adjoin(y,r) ^ (x=y " Member(x,r)))
5. A set is a subset of another iff all of the 1st set’s members are members of the 2nd:
• witch(W) # wood(W) applying universal instan. %s,r Subset(s,r) <=> (%x Member(x,s) => Member(x,r))
to fallacious conclusion #1 6. Two sets are equal iff each is a subset of the other:
%s,r (s=r) <=> (subset(s,r) ^ subset(r,s))
• wood(W)
7. Intersection
• --------------------------------- %x,s1,s2 member(X,intersection(S1,S2)) <=> member(X,s1) ^ member(X,s2)
• ( witch(z) 8. Union
&x,s1,s2 member(X,union(s1,s2)) <=> member(X,s1) " member(X,s2)
Axioms, definitions and theorems Extensions to FOL
•Axioms are facts and rules that attempt to capture all of the
(important) facts and concepts about a domain; axioms can • Higher-order logic
be used to prove theorems – Quantify over relations
–Mathematicians don’t want any unnecessary (dependent) axioms • Representing functions with the lambda operator (*)
–ones that can be derived from other axioms
–Dependent axioms can make reasoning faster, however • Expressing uniqueness &!, +
–Choosing a good set of axioms for a domain is a kind of design • Sorted logic
problem

•A definition of a predicate is of the form “p(X) _ …” and


can be decomposed into two parts
–Necessary description: “p(x) # …”
–Sufficient description “p(x) ) …”
–Some concepts don’t have complete definitions (e.g., person(x))

Higher-order logic Expressing uniqueness


• Sometimes we want to say that there is a single, unique
• In FOL, variables can only range over objects object that satisfies a certain condition
• HOL allows us to quantify over relations • “There exists a unique x such that king(x) is true”
• More expressive, but undecidable – &x king(x) ^ %y (king(y) ' x=y)
• Example: – &x king(x) ^ not(&y (king(y) ^ x,y)
“two functions are equal iff they produce the same value for all – &!x king(x)
arguments” • “Every country has exactly one ruler”
– %f %g (f = g) '(%x f(x) = g(x)) – %c country(c) ' &!r ruler(c,r)
• Example: • Iota operator: “+ x P(x)” means “the unique x such that p(x)
%r transitive( r ) ' (%x%y%z r(x,y) ^ r(y,z) # r(x,z))
is true”
– “The unique ruler of Freedonia is dead”
– dead(+ x ruler(freedonia,x))
Notational differences
• Different symbols for and, or, not, implies, ...
–% & ' - ! " ¬ • .
– p v (q ^ r)
– p + (q * r)
– etc
• Prolog
cat(X) :- furry(X), meows (X), has(X, claws)
• Lispy notations
(forall ?x (implies (and (furry ?x)
(meows ?x)
(has ?x claws))
(cat ?x)))

You might also like