Propositional logic in Artificial intelligence

Propositional logic (PL) is the simplest form of logic where all the statements are made by propositions. A
proposition is a declarative statement which is either true or false. It is a technique of knowledge
representation in logical and mathematical form.

Example:

1. a) It is Sunday.
2. b) The Sun rises from West (False proposition)
3. c) 3+3= 7(False proposition)
4. d) 5 is a prime number.

Basic facts about propositional logic:

o Propositional logic is also called Boolean logic as it works on 0 and 1.

o In propositional logic, we use symbolic variables to represent the logic, and we can use any symbol
for a representing a proposition, such A, B, C, P, Q, R, etc.
o Propositions can be either true or false, but it cannot be both.
o Propositional logic consists of an object, relations or function, and logical connectives.
o These connectives are also called logical operators.
o The propositions and connectives are the basic elements of the propositional logic.
o Connectives can be said as a logical operator which connects two sentences.
o A proposition formula which is always true is called tautology, and it is also called a valid sentence.
o A proposition formula which is always false is called Contradiction.
o Statements which are questions, commands, or opinions are not propositions such as "Where is
Rohini", "How are you", "What is your name", are not propositions.

Syntax of propositional logic:

The syntax of propositional logic defines the allowable sentences for the knowledge representation. There
are two types of Propositions:

a. Atomic Propositions
b. Compound propositions

o Atomic Proposition: Atomic propositions are the simple propositions. It consists of a single
proposition symbol. These are the sentences which must be either true or false.

Example:

1. a) 2+2 is 4, it is an atomic proposition as it is a true fact.

2. b) "The Sun is cold" is also a proposition as it is a false fact.
 o Compound proposition: Compound propositions are constructed by combining simpler or atomic
propositions, using parenthesis and logical connectives.

Example:

1. a) "It is raining today, and street is wet."

2. b) "Ankit is a doctor, and his clinic is in Mumbai."
Logical Connectives:
Logical connectives are used to connect two simpler propositions or representing a sentence logically. We
can create compound propositions with the help of logical connectives. There are mainly five connectives,
which are given as follows:

1. Negation: A sentence such as ¬ P is called negation of P. A literal can be either Positive literal or
negative literal.
2. Conjunction: A sentence which has ∧ connective such as, P ∧ Q is called a conjunction.
Example: Rohan is intelligent and hardworking. It can be written as,
P= Rohan is intelligent,
Q= Rohan is hardworking. → P∧ Q.
3. Disjunction: A sentence which has ∨ connective, such as P ∨ Q. is called disjunction, where P and Q
are the propositions.
Example: "Ritika is a doctor or Engineer",
Here P= Ritika is Doctor. Q= Ritika is Doctor, so we can write it as P ∨ Q.
4. Implication: A sentence such as P → Q, is called an implication. Implications are also known as if-
then rules. It can be represented as
If it is raining, then the street is wet.
Let P= It is raining, and Q= Street is wet, so it is represented as P → Q
5. Biconditional: A sentence such as P⇔ Q is a Biconditional sentence, example If I am breathing,
then I am alive
P= I am breathing, Q= I am alive, it can be represented as P ⇔ Q.

Following is the summarized table for Propositional Logic Connectives:

Truth Table:
In propositional logic, we need to know the truth values of propositions in all possible scenarios. We can
combine all the possible combination with logical connectives, and the representation of these combinations
in a tabular format is called Truth table. Following are the truth table for all logical connectives:

Truth table with three propositions:

We can build a proposition composing three propositions P, Q, and R. This truth table is made-up of 8n
Tuples as we have taken three proposition symbols.
Precedence of connectives:
Just like arithmetic operators, there is a precedence order for propositional connectors or logical operators.
This order should be followed while evaluating a propositional problem. Following is the list of the
precedence order for operators:

Precedence Operators

First Precedence Parenthesis

Second Precedence Negation

Third Precedence Conjunction(AND)

Fourth Precedence Disjunction(OR)

Fifth Precedence Implication

Six Precedence Biconditional

Note: For better understanding use parenthesis to make sure of the correct interpretations. Such as ¬R ∨ Q, It
can be interpreted as (¬R) ∨ Q.

Logical equivalence:
Logical equivalence is one of the features of propositional logic. Two propositions are said to be
logically equivalent if and only if the columns in the truth table are identical to each other.

Let's take two propositions A and B, so for logical equivalence, we can write it as A⇔B. In below truth table
we can see that column for ¬A∨ B and A→B, are identical hence A is Equivalent to B
Properties of Operators:

o Commutativity:
o P∧ Q= Q ∧ P, or
o P ∨ Q = Q ∨ P.
o Associativity:
o (P ∧ Q) ∧ R= P ∧ (Q ∧ R),
o (P ∨ Q) ∨ R= P ∨ (Q ∨ R)
o Identity element:
o P ∧ True = P,
o P ∨ True= True.
o Distributive:
o P∧ (Q ∨ R) = (P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ R).
o P ∨ (Q ∧ R) = (P ∨ Q) ∧ (P ∨ R).
o DE Morgan's Law:
o ¬ (P ∧ Q) = (¬P) ∨ (¬Q)
o ¬ (P ∨ Q) = (¬ P) ∧ (¬Q).
o Double-negation elimination:
o ¬ (¬P) = P.

Limitations of Propositional logic:

o We cannot represent relations like ALL, some, or none with propositional logic. Example:
a. All the girls are intelligent.
b. Some apples are sweet.
o Propositional logic has limited expressive power.

In propositional logic, we cannot describe statements in terms of their properties or logical relationships.
Rules of Inference in Artificial intelligence

Inference:
In artificial intelligence, we need intelligent computers which can create new logic from old logic or by
evidence, so generating the conclusions from evidence and facts is termed as Inference.

Inference rules:
Inference rules are the templates for generating valid arguments. Inference rules are applied to derive proofs
in artificial intelligence, and the proof is a sequence of the conclusion that leads to the desired goal.

In inference rules, the implication among all the connectives plays an important role. Following are some
terminologies related to inference rules:

o Implication: It is one of the logical connectives which can be represented as P → Q. It is a Boolean

expression.
o Converse: The converse of implication, which means the right-hand side proposition goes to the left-
hand side and vice-versa. It can be written as Q → P.
o Contrapositive: The negation of converse is termed as contrapositive, and it can be represented as
¬ Q → ¬ P.
o Inverse: The negation of implication is called inverse. It can be represented as ¬ P → ¬ Q.

From the above term some of the compound statements are equivalent to each other, which we can prove
using truth table:

Hence from the above truth table, we can prove that P → Q is equivalent to ¬ Q → ¬ P, and Q→ P is
equivalent to ¬ P → ¬ Q.

Types of Inference rules:

1. Modus Ponens:
The Modus Ponens rule is one of the most important rules of inference, and it states that if P and P → Q
is true, then we can infer that Q will be true. It can be represented as:
Example:

Statement-1: "If I am sleepy then I go to bed" ==> P→ Q

Statement-2: "I am sleepy" ==> P
Conclusion: "I go to bed." ==> Q.
Hence, we can say that, if P→ Q is true and P is true then Q will be true.

Proof by Truth table:

2. Modus Tollens:
The Modus Tollens rule state that if P→ Q is true and ¬ Q is true, then ¬ P will also true. It can be represented
as:

Statement-1: "If I am sleepy then I go to bed" ==> P→ Q

Statement-2: "I do not go to the bed."==> ~Q
Statement-3: Which infers that "I am not sleepy" => ~P

Proof by Truth table:

3. Hypothetical Syllogism:
The Hypothetical Syllogism rule state that if P→R is true whenever P→Q is true, and Q→R is true. It can be
represented as the following notation:

Example:

Statement-1: If you have my home key then you can unlock my home. P→Q
Statement-2: If you can unlock my home then you can take my money. Q→R
Conclusion: If you have my home key then you can take my money. P→R
Proof by truth table:

4. Disjunctive Syllogism:
The Disjunctive syllogism rule state that if P∨Q is true, and ¬P is true, then Q will be true. It can be represented
as:

Example:

Statement-1: Today is Sunday or Monday. ==>P∨Q

Statement-2: Today is not Sunday. ==> ¬P
Conclusion: Today is Monday. ==> Q

Proof by truth-table:

5. Addition:
The Addition rule is one the common inference rule, and it states that If P is true, then P∨Q will be true.

Example:

Statement: I have a vanilla ice-cream. ==> P

Statement-2: I have Chocolate ice-cream.
Conclusion: I have vanilla or chocolate ice-cream. ==> (P∨Q)
Proof by Truth-Table:

6. Simplification:
The simplification rule state that if P∧ Q is true, then Q or P will also be true. It can be represented as:

Proof by Truth-Table:

7. Resolution:
The Resolution rule state that if P∨Q and ¬ P∧R is true, then Q∨R will also be true. It can be represented as

Proof by Truth-Table:
First-Order Logic in Artificial intelligence
In the topic of Propositional logic, we have seen that how to represent statements using propositional logic.
But unfortunately, in propositional logic, we can only represent the facts, which are either true or false. PL is
not sufficient to represent the complex sentences or natural language statements. The propositional logic
has very limited expressive power. Consider the following sentence, which we cannot represent using PL
logic.

o "Some humans are intelligent", or

o "Sachin likes cricket."

To represent the above statements, PL logic is not sufficient, so we required some more powerful logic, such
as first-order logic.

First-Order logic:
o First-order logic is another way of knowledge representation in artificial intelligence. It is an extension
to propositional logic.
o FOL is sufficiently expressive to represent the natural language statements in a concise way.
o First-order logic is also known as Predicate logic or First-order predicate logic. First-order logic is
a powerful language that develops information about the objects in a more easy way and can also
express the relationship between those objects.
o First-order logic (like natural language) does not only assume that the world contains facts like
propositional logic but also assumes the following things in the world:
o Objects: A, B, people, numbers, colors, wars, theories, squares, pits, wumpus, ......
o Relations: It can be unary relation such as: red, round, is adjacent, or n-any relation such
as: the sister of, brother of, has color, comes between
o Function: Father of, best friend, third inning of, end of, ......
o As a natural language, first-order logic also has two main parts:
a. Syntax
b. Semantics

Syntax of First-Order logic:

The syntax of FOL determines which collection of symbols is a logical expression in first-order logic. The basic
syntactic elements of first-order logic are symbols. We write statements in short-hand notation in FOL.

Basic Elements of First-order logic:

Following are the basic elements of FOL syntax:

Constant 1, 2, A, John, Mumbai, cat,....

Variables x, y, z, a, b,....

Predicates Brother, Father, >,....

 Function sqrt, LeftLegOf, ....

Connectives ∧, ∨, ¬, ⇒, ⇔

Equality ==

Quantifier ∀, ∃

Atomic sentences:

o Atomic sentences are the most basic sentences of first-order logic. These sentences are formed from
a predicate symbol followed by a parenthesis with a sequence of terms.
o We can represent atomic sentences as Predicate (term1, term2, ......, term n).

Example: Ravi and Ajay are brothers: => Brothers(Ravi, Ajay).

Chinky is a cat: => cat (Chinky).

Complex Sentences:

o Complex sentences are made by combining atomic sentences using connectives.

First-order logic statements can be divided into two parts:

o Subject: Subject is the main part of the statement.

o Predicate: A predicate can be defined as a relation, which binds two atoms together in a statement.

Consider the statement: "x is an integer.", it consists of two parts, the first part x is the subject of the
statement and second part "is an integer," is known as a predicate.

Quantifiers in First-order logic:

o A quantifier is a language element which generates quantification, and quantification specifies the
quantity of specimen in the universe of discourse.
o These are the symbols that permit to determine or identify the range and scope of the variable in the
logical expression. There are two types of quantifier:
a. Universal Quantifier, (for all, everyone, everything)
b. Existential quantifier, (for some, at least one).
Universal Quantifier:
Universal quantifier is a symbol of logical representation, which specifies that the statement within its range
is true for everything or every instance of a particular thing.

The Universal quantifier is represented by a symbol ∀, which resembles an inverted A.

Note: In universal quantifier we use implication "→".

If x is a variable, then ∀x is read as:

o For all x
o For each x
o For every x.

Example:
All man drink coffee.

Let a variable x which refers to a cat so all x can be represented in UOD as below:

∀x man(x) → drink (x, coffee).

It will be read as: There are all x where x is a man who drink coffee.

Existential Quantifier:
Existential quantifiers are the type of quantifiers, which express that the statement within its scope is true for
at least one instance of something.

It is denoted by the logical operator ∃, which resembles as inverted E. When it is used with a predicate
variable then it is called as an existential quantifier.
Note: In Existential quantifier we always use AND or Conjunction symbol ( ∧).

If x is a variable, then existential quantifier will be ∃x or ∃(x). And it will be read as:

o There exists a 'x.'

o For some 'x.'
o For at least one 'x.'

Example:
Some boys are intelligent.

∃x: boys(x) ∧ intelligent(x)

It will be read as: There are some x where x is a boy who is intelligent.

Points to remember:
o The main connective for universal quantifier ∀ is implication →.
o The main connective for existential quantifier ∃ is and ∧.

Properties of Quantifiers:
o In universal quantifier, ∀x∀y is similar to ∀y∀x.
o In Existential quantifier, ∃x∃y is similar to ∃y∃x.
o ∃x∀y is not similar to ∀y∃x.

Some Examples of FOL using quantifier:

1. All birds fly.

In this question the predicate is "fly(bird)."
And since there are all birds who fly so it will be represented as follows.
∀x bird(x) →fly(x).
2. Every man respects his parent.
In this question, the predicate is "respect(x, y)," where x=man, and y= parent.
Since there is every man so will use ∀, and it will be represented as follows:
∀x man(x) → respects (x, parent).

3. Some boys play cricket.

In this question, the predicate is "play(x, y)," where x= boys, and y= game. Since there are some boys so
we will use ∃, and it will be represented as:
∃x boys(x) → play(x, cricket).

4. Not all students like both Mathematics and Science.

In this question, the predicate is "like(x, y)," where x= student, and y= subject.
Since there are not all students, so we will use ∀ with negation, so following representation for this:
¬∀ (x) [ student(x) → like(x, Mathematics) ∧ like(x, Science)].

5. Only one student failed in Mathematics.

In this question, the predicate is "failed(x, y)," where x= student, and y= subject.
Since there is only one student who failed in Mathematics, so we will use following representation for this:
∃(x) [ student(x) → failed (x, Mathematics) ∧∀ (y) [¬(x==y) ∧ student(y) → ¬failed (x,
Mathematics)].

Free and Bound Variables:

The quantifiers interact with variables which appear in a suitable way. There are two types of variables in
First-order logic which are given below:

Free Variable: A variable is said to be a free variable in a formula if it occurs outside the scope of the
quantifier.

Example: ∀x ∃(y)[P (x, y, z)], where z is a free variable.

Bound Variable: A variable is said to be a bound variable in a formula if it occurs within the scope of the
quantifier.

Example: ∀x [A (x) B( y)], here x and y are the bound variables.

Knowledge Engineering in First-order logic
What is knowledge-engineering?
The process of constructing a knowledge-base in first-order logic is called as knowledge- engineering.
In knowledge-engineering, someone who investigates a particular domain, learns important concept of
that domain, and generates a formal representation of the objects, is known as knowledge engineer.

In this topic, we will understand the Knowledge engineering process in an electronic circuit domain, which is
already familiar. This approach is mainly suitable for creating special-purpose knowledge base.

The knowledge-engineering process:

Following are some main steps of the knowledge-engineering process. Using these steps, we will develop a
knowledge base which will allow us to reason about digital circuit (One-bit full adder) which is given below

1. Identify the task:

The first step of the process is to identify the task, and for the digital circuit, there are various reasoning
tasks.

At the first level or highest level, we will examine the functionality of the circuit:

o Does the circuit add properly?

o What will be the output of gate A2, if all the inputs are high?

At the second level, we will examine the circuit structure details such as:

o Which gate is connected to the first input terminal?

o Does the circuit have feedback loops?

2. Assemble the relevant knowledge:

In the second step, we will assemble the relevant knowledge which is required for digital circuits. So for
digital circuits, we have the following required knowledge:
 o Logic circuits are made up of wires and gates.
o Signal flows through wires to the input terminal of the gate, and each gate produces the
corresponding output which flows further.
o In this logic circuit, there are four types of gates used: AND, OR, XOR, and NOT.
o All these gates have one output terminal and two input terminals (except NOT gate, it has one input
terminal).

3. Decide on vocabulary:
The next step of the process is to select functions, predicate, and constants to represent the circuits,
terminals, signals, and gates. Firstly we will distinguish the gates from each other and from other objects.
Each gate is represented as an object which is named by a constant, such as, Gate(X1). The functionality of
each gate is determined by its type, which is taken as constants such as AND, OR, XOR, or NOT. Circuits will
be identified by a predicate: Circuit (C1).

For the terminal, we will use predicate: Terminal(x).

For gate input, we will use the function In(1, X1) for denoting the first input terminal of the gate, and for
output terminal we will use Out (1, X1).

The function Arity(c, i, j) is used to denote that circuit c has i input, j output.

The connectivity between gates can be represented by predicate Connect(Out(1, X1), In(1, X1)).

We use a unary predicate On (t), which is true if the signal at a terminal is on.

4. Encode general knowledge about the domain:

To encode the general knowledge about the logic circuit, we need some following rules:

o If two terminals are connected then they have the same input signal, it can be represented as:

1. ∀ t1, t2 Terminal (t1) ∧ Terminal (t2) ∧ Connect (t1, t2) → Signal (t1) = Signal (2).
o Signal at every terminal will have either value 0 or 1, it will be represented as:

1. ∀ t Terminal (t) →Signal (t) = 1 ∨Signal (t) = 0.

o Connect predicates are commutative:

1. ∀ t1, t2 Connect(t1, t2) → Connect (t2, t1).

o Representation of types of gates:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r = Type(g) → r = OR ∨r = AND ∨r = XOR ∨r = NOT.

o Output of AND gate will be zero if and only if any of its input is zero.

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = AND →Signal (Out(1, g))= 0 ⇔ ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 0.

o Output of OR gate is 1 if and only if any of its input is 1:
 1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = OR → Signal (Out(1, g))= 1 ⇔ ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 1
o Output of XOR gate is 1 if and only if its inputs are different:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = XOR → Signal (Out(1, g)) = 1 ⇔ Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (In(2, g)).
o Output of NOT gate is invert of its input:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (Out(1, g)).

o All the gates in the above circuit have two inputs and one output (except NOT gate).

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Arity(g, 1, 1)

2. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r =Type(g) ∧ (r= AND ∨r= OR ∨r= XOR) → Arity (g, 2, 1).
o All gates are logic circuits:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) → Circuit (g).

5. Encode a description of the problem instance:

Now we encode problem of circuit C1, firstly we categorize the circuit and its gate components. This step is
easy if ontology about the problem is already thought. This step involves the writing simple atomics
sentences of instances of concepts, which is known as ontology.

For the given circuit C1, we can encode the problem instance in atomic sentences as below:

Since in the circuit there are two XOR, two AND, and one OR gate so atomic sentences for these gates will
be:

1. For XOR gate: Type(x1)= XOR, Type(X2) = XOR

2. For AND gate: Type(A1) = AND, Type(A2)= AND
3. For OR gate: Type (O1) = OR.

And then represent the connections between all the gates.

6. Pose queries to the inference procedure and get answers:

In this step, we will find all the possible set of values of all the terminal for the adder circuit. The first query
will be:

What should be the combination of input which would generate the first output of circuit C1, as 0 and a
second output to be 1?

1. ∃ i1, i2, i3 Signal (In(1, C1))=i1 ∧ Signal (In(2, C1))=i2 ∧ Signal (In(3, C1))= i3
2. ∧ Signal (Out(1, C1)) =0 ∧ Signal (Out(2, C1))=1

7. Debug the knowledge base:

Now we will debug the knowledge base, and this is the last step of the complete process. In this step, we will
try to debug the issues of knowledge base.

In the knowledge base, we may have omitted assertions like 1 ≠ 0.

Inference in First-Order Logic
Inference in First-Order Logic is used to deduce new facts or sentences from existing sentences. Before
understanding the FOL inference rule, let's understand some basic terminologies used in FOL.

Substitution:

Substitution is a fundamental operation performed on terms and formulas. It occurs in all inference systems
in first-order logic. The substitution is complex in the presence of quantifiers in FOL. If we write F[a/x], so it
refers to substitute a constant "a" in place of variable "x".

Note: First-order logic is capable of expressing facts about some or all objects in the universe.

Equality:

First-Order logic does not only use predicate and terms for making atomic sentences but also uses another
way, which is equality in FOL. For this, we can use equality symbols which specify that the two terms refer
to the same object.

Example: Brother (John) = Smith.

As in the above example, the object referred by the Brother (John) is similar to the object referred by Smith.
The equality symbol can also be used with negation to represent that two terms are not the same objects.

Example: ￢(x=y) which is equivalent to x ≠y.

FOL inference rules for quantifier:

As propositional logic we also have inference rules in first-order logic, so following are some basic inference
rules in FOL:

o Universal Generalization
o Universal Instantiation
o Existential Instantiation
o Existential introduction

1. Universal Generalization:

o Universal generalization is a valid inference rule which states that if premise P(c) is true for any
arbitrary element c in the universe of discourse, then we can have a conclusion as ∀ x P(x).

o It can be represented as: .

o This rule can be used if we want to show that every element has a similar property.
o In this rule, x must not appear as a free variable.

Example: Let's represent, P(c): "A byte contains 8 bits", so for ∀ x P(x) "All bytes contain 8 bits.", it will
also be true.

2. Universal Instantiation:
 o Universal instantiation is also called as universal elimination or UI is a valid inference rule. It can be
applied multiple times to add new sentences.
o The new KB is logically equivalent to the previous KB.
o As per UI, we can infer any sentence obtained by substituting a ground term for the variable.
o The UI rule state that we can infer any sentence P(c) by substituting a ground term c (a constant within
domain x) from ∀ x P(x) for any object in the universe of discourse.

o It can be represented as: .

Example:1.

IF "Every person like ice-cream"=> ∀x P(x) so we can infer that

"John likes ice-cream" => P(c)

Example: 2.

Let's take a famous example,

"All kings who are greedy are Evil." So let our knowledge base contains this detail as in the form of FOL:

∀x king(x) ∧ greedy (x) → Evil (x),

So from this information, we can infer any of the following statements using Universal Instantiation:

o King(John) ∧ Greedy (John) → Evil (John),

o King(Richard) ∧ Greedy (Richard) → Evil (Richard),
o King(Father(John)) ∧ Greedy (Father(John)) → Evil (Father(John)),

3. Existential Instantiation:

o Existential instantiation is also called as Existential Elimination, which is a valid inference rule in first-
order logic.
o It can be applied only once to replace the existential sentence.
o The new KB is not logically equivalent to old KB, but it will be satisfiable if old KB was satisfiable.
o This rule states that one can infer P(c) from the formula given in the form of ∃x P(x) for a new constant
symbol c.
o The restriction with this rule is that c used in the rule must be a new term for which P(c ) is true.

o It can be represented as:

Example:

From the given sentence: ∃x Crown(x) ∧ OnHead(x, John),

So we can infer: Crown(K) ∧ OnHead( K, John), as long as K does not appear in the knowledge base.

o The above used K is a constant symbol, which is called Skolem constant.

 o The Existential instantiation is a special case of Skolemization process.

4. Existential introduction

o An existential introduction is also known as an existential generalization, which is a valid inference

rule in first-order logic.
o This rule states that if there is some element c in the universe of discourse which has a property P,
then we can infer that there exists something in the universe which has the property P.

o It can be represented as:

o Example: Let's say that,
"Priyanka got good marks in English."
"Therefore, someone got good marks in English."

Generalized Modus Ponens Rule:

For the inference process in FOL, we have a single inference rule which is called Generalized Modus Ponens.
It is lifted version of Modus ponens.

Generalized Modus Ponens can be summarized as, " P implies Q and P is asserted to be true, therefore Q
must be True."

According to Modus Ponens, for atomic sentences pi, pi', q. Where there is a substitution θ such that
SUBST (θ, pi',) = SUBST(θ, pi), it can be represented as:

Example:

We will use this rule for Kings are evil, so we will find some x such that x is king, and x is greedy so
we can infer that x is evil.

1. Here let say, p1' is king(John) p1 is king(x)

2. p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)
3. θ is {x/John, y/John} q is evil(x)
4. SUBST(θ,q).

What is Unification?
o Unification is a process of making two different logical atomic expressions identical by finding a
substitution. Unification depends on the substitution process.
o It takes two literals as input and makes them identical using substitution.
o Let Ψ1 and Ψ2 be two atomic sentences and 𝜎 be a unifier such that, Ψ1𝜎 = Ψ2𝜎, then it can be
expressed as UNIFY(Ψ1, Ψ2).
o Example: Find the MGU for Unify{King(x), King(John)}
Let Ψ1 = King(x), Ψ2 = King(John),

Substitution θ = {John/x} is a unifier for these atoms and applying this substitution, and both expressions
will be identical.

o The UNIFY algorithm is used for unification, which takes two atomic sentences and returns a unifier
for those sentences (If any exist).
o Unification is a key component of all first-order inference algorithms.
o It returns fail if the expressions do not match with each other.
o The substitution variables are called Most General Unifier or MGU.

E.g. Let's say there are two different expressions, P(x, y), and P(a, f(z)).

In this example, we need to make both above statements identical to each other. For this, we will perform
the substitution.

P(x, y)......... (i)

P(a, f(z))......... (ii)

o Substitute x with a, and y with f(z) in the first expression, and it will be represented as a/x and f(z)/y.
o With both the substitutions, the first expression will be identical to the second expression and the
substitution set will be: [a/x, f(z)/y].

Conditions for Unification:

Following are some basic conditions for unification:

o Predicate symbol must be same, atoms or expression with different predicate symbol can never be
unified.
o Number of Arguments in both expressions must be identical.
o Unification will fail if there are two similar variables present in the same expression.

Unification Algorithm:
Algorithm: Unify(Ψ1, Ψ2)

Step. 1: If Ψ1 or Ψ2 is a variable or constant, then:

a) If Ψ1 or Ψ2 are identical, then return NIL.
b) Else if Ψ1is a variable,
a. then if Ψ1 occurs in Ψ2, then return FAILURE
b. Else return { (Ψ2/ Ψ1)}.
c) Else if Ψ2 is a variable,
a. If Ψ2 occurs in Ψ1 then return FAILURE,
b. Else return {( Ψ1/ Ψ2)}.
d) Else return FAILURE.
Step.2: If the initial Predicate symbol in Ψ1 and Ψ2 are not same, then return FAILURE.
Step. 3: IF Ψ1 and Ψ2 have a different number of arguments, then return FAILURE.
Step. 4: Set Substitution set(SUBST) to NIL.
Step. 5: For i=1 to the number of elements in Ψ1.
 a) Call Unify function with the ith element of Ψ1 and ith element of Ψ2, and put the
result into S.
b) If S = failure then returns Failure
c) If S ≠ NIL then do,
a. Apply S to the remainder of both L1 and L2.
b. SUBST= APPEND(S, SUBST).
Step.6: Return SUBST.

Implementation of the Algorithm

Step.1: Initialize the substitution set to be empty.

Step.2: Recursively unify atomic sentences:

a. Check for Identical expression match.

b. If one expression is a variable vi, and the other is a term ti which does not contain variable vi, then:
a. Substitute ti / vi in the existing substitutions
b. Add ti /vi to the substitution setlist.
c. If both the expressions are functions, then function name must be similar, and the number of
arguments must be the same in both the expression.

For each pair of the following atomic sentences find the most general unifier (If exist).

1. Find the MGU of {p(f(a), g(Y)) and p(X, X)} Most General Unifier

Sol: S0 => Here, Ψ1 = p(f(a), g(Y)), and Ψ2 = p(X, X)

SUBST θ= {f(a) / X}
S1 => Ψ1 = p(f(a), g(Y)), and Ψ2 = p(f(a), f(a))
SUBST θ= {f(a) / g(y)}, Unification failed.

Unification is not possible for these expressions.

2. Find the MGU of {p(b, X, f(g(Z))) and p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))}

Here, Ψ1 = p(b, X, f(g(Z))) , and Ψ2 = p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))

S0 => { p(b, X, f(g(Z))); p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))}
SUBST θ={b/Z}

S1 => { p(b, X, f(g(b))); p(b, f(Y), f(Y))}

SUBST θ={f(Y) /X}

S2 => { p(b, f(Y), f(g(b))); p(b, f(Y), f(Y))}

SUBST θ= {g(b) /Y}

S2 => { p(b, f(g(b)), f(g(b)); p(b, f(g(b)), f(g(b))} Unified Successfully.

And Unifier = { b/Z, f(Y) /X , g(b) /Y}.

3. Find the MGU of {p (X, X), and p (Z, f(Z))}

Here, Ψ1 = {p (X, X), and Ψ2 = p (Z, f(Z))

S0 => {p (X, X), p (Z, f(Z))}
SUBST θ= {X/Z}
 S1 => {p (Z, Z), p (Z, f(Z))}
SUBST θ= {f(Z) / Z}, Unification Failed.

Hence, unification is not possible for these expressions.

4. Find the MGU of UNIFY(prime (11), prime(y))

Here, Ψ1 = {prime(11) , and Ψ2 = prime(y)}

S0 => {prime(11) , prime(y)}
SUBST θ= {11/y}

S1 => {prime(11) , prime(11)} , Successfully unified.

Unifier: {11/y}.

5. Find the MGU of Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)), Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)}

Here, Ψ1 = Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)), and Ψ2 = Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)

S0 => {Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)}
SUBST θ= {f(b)/x}
S1 => {Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(y)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b))}

SUBST θ= {b/y}
S1 => {Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b))}, Successfully Unified.

Unifier: [a/a, f(b)/x, b/y].

6. UNIFY(knows(Richard, x), knows(Richard, John))

Here, Ψ1 = knows(Richard, x), and Ψ2 = knows(Richard, John)

S0 => { knows(Richard, x); knows(Richard, John)}
SUBST θ= {John/x}
S1 => { knows(Richard, John); knows(Richard, John)}, Successfully Unified.
Unifier: {John/x}.

Resolution in FOL
Resolution
Resolution is a theorem proving technique that proceeds by building refutation proofs, i.e., proofs by
contradictions. It was invented by a Mathematician John Alan Robinson in the year 1965.

Resolution is used, if there are various statements are given, and we need to prove a conclusion of those
statements. Unification is a key concept in proofs by resolutions. Resolution is a single inference rule which
can efficiently operate on the conjunctive normal form or clausal form.

Clause: Disjunction of literals (an atomic sentence) is called a clause. It is also known as a unit clause.

Conjunctive Normal Form: A sentence represented as a conjunction of clauses is said to be conjunctive

normal form or CNF.
Note: To better understand this topic, firstly learns the FOL in AI.
The resolution inference rule:
The resolution rule for first-order logic is simply a lifted version of the propositional rule. Resolution can
resolve two clauses if they contain complementary literals, which are assumed to be standardized apart so
that they share no variables.

Where li and mj are complementary literals.

This rule is also called the binary resolution rule because it only resolves exactly two literals.

Example:
We can resolve two clauses which are given below:

[Animal (g(x) V Loves (f(x), x)] and [￢ Loves(a, b) V ￢Kills(a, b)]

Where two complimentary literals are: Loves (f(x), x) and ￢ Loves (a, b)

These literals can be unified with unifier θ= [a/f(x), and b/x] , and it will generate a resolvent clause:

[Animal (g(x) V ￢ Kills(f(x), x)].

Steps for Resolution:

1. Conversion of facts into first-order logic.
2. Convert FOL statements into CNF
3. Negate the statement which needs to prove (proof by contradiction)
4. Draw resolution graph (unification).

To better understand all the above steps, we will take an example in which we will apply resolution.

Example:

a. John likes all kind of food.

b. Apple and vegetable are food
c. Anything anyone eats and not killed is food.
d. Anil eats peanuts and still alive
e. Harry eats everything that Anil eats.
Prove by resolution that:
f. John likes peanuts.

Step-1: Conversion of Facts into FOL

In the first step we will convert all the given statements into its first order logic.
Step-2: Conversion of FOL into CNF

In First order logic resolution, it is required to convert the FOL into CNF as CNF form makes easier for
resolution proofs.

o Eliminate all implication (→) and rewrite

a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
c. ∀x ∀y ¬ [eats(x, y) Λ ¬ killed(x)] V food(y)
d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
e. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
f. ∀x¬ [¬ killed(x) ] V alive(x)
g. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
h. likes(John, Peanuts).
o Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite
a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
c. ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)
d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
e. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
f. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
g. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
h. likes(John, Peanuts).
o Rename variables or standardize variables
a. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
b. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
c. ∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
d. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
e. ∀w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
f. ∀g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)
 g. ∀k ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
h. likes(John, Peanuts).
o Eliminate existential instantiation quantifier by elimination.
In this step, we will eliminate existential quantifier ∃, and this process is known as Skolemization.
But in this example problem since there is no existential quantifier so all the statements will remain
same in this step.
o Drop Universal quantifiers.
In this step we will drop all universal quantifier since all the statements are not implicitly quantified
so we don't need it.
a. ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
b. food(Apple)
c. food(vegetables)
d. ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
e. eats (Anil, Peanuts)
f. alive(Anil)
g. ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
h. killed(g) V alive(g)
i. ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
j. likes(John, Peanuts).

Note: Statements "food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)" and "eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)" can be
written in two separate statements.
o Distribute conjunction ∧ over disjunction ¬.
This step will not make any change in this problem.

Step-3: Negate the statement to be proved

In this statement, we will apply negation to the conclusion statements, which will be written as ¬likes(John,
Peanuts)

Step-4: Draw Resolution graph:

Now in this step, we will solve the problem by resolution tree using substitution. For the above problem, it
will be given as follows:
Hence the negation of the conclusion has been proved as a complete contradiction with the given set of
statements.

Explanation of Resolution graph:

o In the first step of resolution graph, ¬likes(John, Peanuts) , and likes(John, x) get
resolved(canceled) by substitution of {Peanuts/x}, and we are left with ¬ food(Peanuts)
o In the second step of the resolution graph, ¬ food(Peanuts) , and food(z) get resolved (canceled)
by substitution of { Peanuts/z}, and we are left with ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) V killed(y) .
o In the third step of the resolution graph, ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) and eats (Anil, Peanuts) get resolved
by substitution {Anil/y}, and we are left with Killed(Anil) .
o In the fourth step of the resolution graph, Killed(Anil) and ¬ killed(k) get resolve by
substitution {Anil/k}, and we are left with ¬ alive(Anil) .
o In the last step of the resolution graph ¬ alive(Anil) and alive(Anil) get resolved.
The Wumpus World in Artificial intelligence
Wumpus world:
The Wumpus world is a simple world example to illustrate the worth of a knowledge-based agent and to
represent knowledge representation. It was inspired by a video game Hunt the Wumpus by Gregory Yob in
1973.

The Wumpus world is a cave which has 4/4 rooms connected with passageways. So there are total 16 rooms
which are connected with each other. We have a knowledge-based agent who will go forward in this world.
The cave has a room with a beast which is called Wumpus, who eats anyone who enters the room. The
Wumpus can be shot by the agent, but the agent has a single arrow. In the Wumpus world, there are some
Pits rooms which are bottomless, and if agent falls in Pits, then he will be stuck there forever. The exciting
thing with this cave is that in one room there is a possibility of finding a heap of gold. So the agent goal is
to find the gold and climb out the cave without fallen into Pits or eaten by Wumpus. The agent will get a
reward if he comes out with gold, and he will get a penalty if eaten by Wumpus or falls in the pit.

Note: Here Wumpus is static and cannot move.

Following is a sample diagram for representing the Wumpus world. It is showing some rooms with Pits, one
room with Wumpus and one agent at (1, 1) square location of the world.

There are also some components which can help the agent to navigate the cave. These components
are given as follows:

a. The rooms adjacent to the Wumpus room are smelly, so that it would have some stench.
b. The room adjacent to PITs has a breeze, so if the agent reaches near to PIT, then he will perceive the
breeze.
c. There will be glitter in the room if and only if the room has gold.
 d. The Wumpus can be killed by the agent if the agent is facing to it, and Wumpus will emit a horrible
scream which can be heard anywhere in the cave.

PEAS description of Wumpus world:

To explain the Wumpus world we have given PEAS description as below:

Performance measure:

o +1000 reward points if the agent comes out of the cave with the gold.
o -1000 points penalty for being eaten by the Wumpus or falling into the pit.
o -1 for each action, and -10 for using an arrow.
o The game ends if either agent dies or came out of the cave.

Environment:

o A 4*4 grid of rooms.

o The agent initially in room square [1, 1], facing toward the right.
o Location of Wumpus and gold are chosen randomly except the first square [1,1].
o Each square of the cave can be a pit with probability 0.2 except the first square.

Actuators:

o Left turn,
o Right turn
o Move forward
o Grab
o Release
o Shoot.

Sensors:

o The agent will perceive the stench if he is in the room adjacent to the Wumpus. (Not diagonally).
o The agent will perceive breeze if he is in the room directly adjacent to the Pit.
o The agent will perceive the glitter in the room where the gold is present.
o The agent will perceive the bump if he walks into a wall.
o When the Wumpus is shot, it emits a horrible scream which can be perceived anywhere in the cave.
o These percepts can be represented as five element list, in which we will have different indicators for
each sensor.
o Example if agent perceives stench, breeze, but no glitter, no bump, and no scream then it can be
represented as:
[Stench, Breeze, None, None, None].
The Wumpus world Properties:
o Partially observable: The Wumpus world is partially observable because the agent can only perceive
the close environment such as an adjacent room.
o Deterministic: It is deterministic, as the result and outcome of the world are already known.
o Sequential: The order is important, so it is sequential.
o Static: It is static as Wumpus and Pits are not moving.
o Discrete: The environment is discrete.
o One agent: The environment is a single agent as we have one agent only and Wumpus is not
considered as an agent.

Exploring the Wumpus world:

Now we will explore the Wumpus world and will determine how the agent will find its goal by applying
logical reasoning.

Agent's First step:

Initially, the agent is in the first room or on the square [1,1], and we already know that this room is safe for
the agent, so to represent on the below diagram (a) that room is safe we will add symbol OK. Symbol A is
used to represent agent, symbol B for the breeze, G for Glitter or gold, V for the visited room, P for pits, W
for Wumpus.

At Room [1,1] agent does not feel any breeze or any Stench which means the adjacent squares are also OK.

Agent's second Step:

Now agent needs to move forward, so it will either move to [1, 2], or [2,1]. Let's suppose agent moves to the
room [2, 1], at this room agent perceives some breeze which means Pit is around this room. The pit can be
in [3, 1], or [2,2], so we will add symbol P? to say that, is this Pit room?

Now agent will stop and think and will not make any harmful move. The agent will go back to the [1, 1] room.
The room [1,1], and [2,1] are visited by the agent, so we will use symbol V to represent the visited squares.
Agent's third step:

At the third step, now agent will move to the room [1,2] which is OK. In the room [1,2] agent perceives a
stench which means there must be a Wumpus nearby. But Wumpus cannot be in the room [1,1] as by rules
of the game, and also not in [2,2] (Agent had not detected any stench when he was at [2,1]). Therefore agent
infers that Wumpus is in the room [1,3], and in current state, there is no breeze which means in [2,2] there is
no Pit and no Wumpus. So it is safe, and we will mark it OK, and the agent moves further in [2,2].

Agent's fourth step:

At room [2,2], here no stench and no breezes present so let's suppose agent decides to move to [2,3]. At
room [2,3] agent perceives glitter, so it should grab the gold and climb out of the cave.
Knowledge-base for Wumpus world
As in the previous topic we have learned about the wumpus world and how a knowledge-based agent
evolves the world. Now in this topic, we will create a knowledge base for the wumpus world, and will derive
some proves for the Wumpus-world using propositional logic.

The agent starts visiting from first square [1, 1], and we already know that this room is safe for the agent. To
build a knowledge base for wumpus world, we will use some rules and atomic propositions. We need symbol
[i, j] for each location in the wumpus world, where i is for the location of rows, and j for column location.

Atomic proposition variable for Wumpus world:

o Let Pi,j be true if there is a Pit in the room [i, j].

o Let Bi,j be true if agent perceives breeze in [i, j], (dead or alive).
o Let Wi,j be true if there is wumpus in the square[i, j].
o Let Si,j be true if agent perceives stench in the square [i, j].
o Let Vi,j be true if that square[i, j] is visited.
o Let Gi,j be true if there is gold (and glitter) in the square [i, j].
o Let OKi,j be true if the room is safe.

Note: For a 4 * 4 square board, there will be 7*4*4= 122 propositional variables.

Some Propositional Rules for the wumpus world:

Note: lack of variables gives us similar rules for each cell.

Representation of Knowledgebase for Wumpus world:

Following is the Simple KB for wumpus world when an agent moves from room [1, 1], to room [2,1]:

Here in the first row, we have mentioned propositional variables for room[1,1], which is showing that room
does not have wumpus(¬ W11), no stench (¬S11), no Pit(¬P11), no breeze(¬B11), no gold (¬G11), visited (V11),
and the room is Safe(OK11).

In the second row, we have mentioned propositional variables for room [1,2], which is showing that there is
no wumpus, stench and breeze are unknown as an agent has not visited room [1,2], no Pit, not visited yet,
and the room is safe.

In the third row we have mentioned propositional variable for room[2,1], which is showing that there is no
wumpus(¬ W21), no stench (¬S21), no Pit (¬P21), Perceives breeze(B21), no glitter(¬G21), visited (V21), and
room is safe (OK21).

Prove that Wumpus is in the room (1, 3)

We can prove that wumpus is in the room (1, 3) using propositional rules which we have derived for the
wumpus world and using inference rule.

o Apply Modus Ponens with ¬S11 and R1:

We will firstly apply MP rule with R1 which is ¬S 11 → ¬ W11 ^ ¬ W12 ^ ¬ W21, and ¬S11 which will give the
output ¬ W11 ^ W12 ^ W12.

o Apply And-Elimination Rule:

After applying And-elimination rule to ¬ W11 ∧ ¬ W12 ∧ ¬ W21, we will get three statements:
¬ W11, ¬ W12, and ¬W21.

o Apply Modus Ponens to ¬S21, and R2:

Now we will apply Modus Ponens to ¬S21 and R2 which is ¬S21 → ¬ W21 ∧¬ W22 ∧ ¬ W31, which will give the
Output as ¬ W21 ∧ ¬ W22 ∧¬ W31
 o Apply And -Elimination rule:

Now again apply And-elimination rule to ¬ W21 ∧ ¬ W22 ∧¬ W31, We will get three statements:
¬ W21, ¬ W22, and ¬ W31.

o Apply MP to S12 and R4:

Apply Modus Ponens to S12 and R4 which is S12 → W13 ∨. W12 ∨. W22 ∨.W11, we will get the output as W13∨
W12 ∨ W22 ∨.W11.

o Apply Unit resolution on W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 ∨W11 and ¬ W11 :

After applying Unit resolution formula on W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 ∨W11 and ¬ W11 we will get W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22.

o Apply Unit resolution on W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 and ¬ W22 :

After applying Unit resolution on W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22, and ¬W22, we will get W13 ∨ W12 as output.

o Apply Unit Resolution on W13 ∨ W12 and ¬ W12 :

After Applying Unit resolution on W13 ∨ W12 and ¬ W12, we will get W13 as an output, hence it is proved
that the Wumpus is in the room [1, 3].