UNIT-III

First-Order Logic
In the topic of Propositional logic, we have seen 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 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:

➢ First-order logic is another way of knowledge representation in artificial intelligence. It is

an extension to propositional logic.
➢ FOL is sufficiently expressive to represent the natural language statements in a concise
way.
➢ 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 an easier
way and can also express the relationship between those objects.
➢ 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:
➢ Objects: A, B, people, numbers, colors, wars, theories, squares, pits, wumpus, ......
➢ 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
➢ Function: Father of, best friend, third inning of, end of, ......
 ➢ As a natural language, first-order logic also has two main parts:
➢ Syntax: The syntax of first-order logic specifies the rules for constructing valid
expressions, including terms and formulas. Terms are expressions that refer to
objects and include constants, variables, and functions. Formulas are logical
statements formed by combining predicates, terms, quantifiers, and logical
connectives.
➢ Semantics: The semantics of FOL define the meaning of the expressions. An
interpretation assigns a domain of discourse and provides meaning to the
constants, functions, and predicates. A formula is considered true under an
interpretation if it accurately describes the relationships and properties of the
objects in the domain.

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:

➢ Constants: Constants represent specific objects within the domain of discourse. For
example, in each domain, Alice, 2, and New York could be constants.
➢ Variables: Variables stand for unspecified objects in the domain. Commonly used
symbols for variables include x, y, and z.
➢ Predicates: Predicates are functions that return true or false, representing properties of
objects or relationships between them.
➢ For example, Likes (Alice, Bob) indicates that Alice likes Bob, and Greater than (x,
2) means that x is greater than 2.
➢ Functions: Functions map objects to other objects. For instance, Mother of(x) might
denote the mother of x.
 ➢ Quantifiers: Quantifiers specify the scope of variables. The two main quantifiers are:
➢ Universal Quantifier (∀): Indicates that a predicate applies to all elements in the
domain.
➢ For example, ∀x (Person(x) → Mortal(x)) means “All persons are mortal.”
➢ Existential Quantifier (∃): Indicates that there is at least one element in the
domain for which the predicate holds.
➢ For example, ∃x (Person(x) ∧ Likes(x, IceCream)) means “There exists a person who
likes ice cream.”
➢ Logical Connectives: Logical connectives include conjunction (∧), disjunction (∨),
implication (→), biconditional (↔), and negation (¬). These connectives are used to form
complex logical statements.

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)

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.

Applications of First-Order Logic in AI:

First-order logic is instrumental in various AI applications, enabling systems to reason

about complex knowledge structures and make informed decisions. Some of the key

applications of FOL in AI include:

1. Knowledge Representation: FOL provides a robust framework for representing

complex relationships and properties of objects. For example, in a medical

diagnosis system, predicates can represent symptoms, diseases, and their

relationships, allowing the system to reason about potential diagnoses.

2. Automated Theorem Proving: Automated theorem proving involves using

algorithms to prove mathematical theorems. FOL provides the foundational

structure for many theorem proving systems, enabling them to verify software
and hardware correctness, prove mathematical theorems, and more.

3. Natural Language Processing (NLP): In NLP, FOL is used to parse and

understand natural language by representing the meaning of sentences in a

formal, logical manner. This allows AI systems to perform tasks such as question
answering, machine translation, and text summarization.
 4. Expert Systems: Expert systems encode expert knowledge using FOL and reason

about it to make decisions. For example, a legal expert system might use FOL to
represent legal rules and infer outcomes based on given facts, aiding in legal

decision-making processes.
5. Semantic Web: The Semantic Web uses FOL to describe relationships between

web resources, enabling more intelligent information retrieval and processing.

This enhances the ability of AI systems to understand and interact with web

content.
Advanced Concepts in First-Order Logic:

1. Unification: Unification is the process of finding a substitution that makes two

logical expressions identical. It is a fundamental operation in automated

reasoning and logic programming, enabling the matching of predicates with

variables.

2. Resolution: Resolution is a rule of inference used for automated theorem

proving. It involves refuting a set of clauses by deriving a contradiction, proving

that the original statement is true. Resolution is a powerful method for proving
logical theorems in FOL.

3. Model Checking: Model checking is a technique used to verify the correctness of

systems with respect to a given specification. FOL is used to express the

properties and behaviors of the system, enabling the verification of complex

systems such as software, hardware, and protocols.

4. Logic Programming: Logic programming languages, such as Prolog, use FOL to

express programs. These languages allow for declarative programming, where the
programmer specifies what needs to be done rather than how to do it. Logic

programming is used in various AI applications, including natural language

processing, expert systems, and knowledge representation.
 Knowledge Engineering in First-order logic
The process of constructing a knowledgebase in first-order logic is called knowledge-

engineering. A knowledge engineer is someone who investigates a particular domain,

learns what concepts are important in that domain, and creates a formal representation of
the objects and relations in the domain.

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 a special-

purpose knowledge base.

The knowledge-engineering process:

Knowledge engineering projects vary widely in content, scope, and difficulty, but all such

projects include the following steps:

1. Identify the task. The knowledge engineer must set the range of questions that the

knowledge base will support and the kinds of facts that will be available for each specific

problem instance. For example, does the wumpus knowledge base need to be able to

choose actions or is it required to answer questions only about the contents of the
environment? Will the sensor facts include the current location? The task will determine

what knowledge must be represented to connect problem instances to answers. This step
is analogous to the PEAS process for designing agents in the previous chapter.

2. Assemble the relevant knowledge: The knowledge engineer might already be an

expert in the domain or might need to work with real experts to extract what they know—

a process called knowledge acquisition. At this stage, knowledge is not represented

formally. The idea is to understand the scope of the knowledge base, as determined by the

task, and to understand how the domain works. For the wumpus world, which is defined
by an artificial set of rules, the relevant knowledge is easy to identify. (Notice, however,

that the definition of adjacency was not supplied explicitly in the wumpus -world rules.)

For real domains, the issue of relevance can be quite difficult—for example, a system for

simulating VLSI designs might or might not need to consider stray capacitances and skin

effects.

3. Decide on a vocabulary of predicates, functions, and constants: That is, translate the

important domain-level concepts into logic-level names. This involves many questions of

knowledge-engineering style. Like programming style, this can have a significant impact

on the eventual success of the project. For example, should pits be represented by objects

or by a unary predicate on squares? Should the agent’s orientation be a function or a

predicate? Should the wumpus’s location depend on time? Once the ONTOLOGY choices
have been made, the result is a vocabulary that is known as the ontology of the domain.
The word ontology means a particular theory of the nature of being or existence. The

ontology determines what kinds of things exist but does not determine their specific

properties and interrelationships.

4. Encode general knowledge about the domain: The knowledge engineer writes down
the axioms for all the vocabulary terms. This pins down (to the extent possible) the

meaning of the terms, enabling the expert to check the content. Often, this step reveals

misconceptions or gaps in the vocabulary that must be fixed by returning to step 3 and

iterating through the process.

5. Encode a description of the specific problem instance: If the ontology is well thought

out, this step will be easy. It will involve writing simple atomic sentences about instances of

concepts that are already part of the ontology. For a logical agent, problem instances are

supplied by the sensors, whereas a “disembodied” knowledge base is supplied with

additional sentences in the same way that traditional programs are supplied with input

data.

6. Pose queries to the inference procedure and get answers: This is where the reward

is: we can let the inference procedure operate on the axioms and problem-specific facts to

derive the facts we are interested in knowing. Thus, we avoid the need for writing an

application-specific solution algorithm.

7. Debug the knowledge base: Alas, the answers to queries will not often be correct on

the first try. More precisely, the answers will be correct for the knowledge base as written,

assuming that the inference procedure is sound, but they will not be the ones that the user

is expecting.

For example, if an axiom is missing, some queries will not be answerable from the

knowledge base. A considerable debugging process could ensue. Missing axioms or

axioms that are too weak can be easily identified by noticing places where the chain of
reasoning stops unexpectedly. For example, if the knowledge base includes a diagnostic

rule for finding the wumpus,

∀ s Smelly(s) ⇒ Adjacent(Home(Wumpus), s) ,

instead of the biconditional, then the agent will never be able to prove the absence of

wumpuses. Incorrect axioms can be identified because they are false statements about the

world. For example, the sentence

∀ x NumOfLegs(x, 4) ⇒ Mammal(x)

is false for reptiles, amphibians, and, more importantly, tables. The falsehood of this

sentence can be determined independently of the rest of the knowledge base. In contrast,
a typical error in a program looks like this: offset = position + 1. It is impossible to tell

whether this statement is correct without looking at the rest of the program to see

whether, for example, offset is used to refer to the current position, or to one beyond the

current position, or whether the value of position is changed by another statement and so

offset should also be changed again. To understand this seven-step process better, we

now apply it to an extended example—the domain of electronic circuits.

The electronic circuits domain:

We will develop an ontology and knowledge base that allows us to reason about digital

circuits of the kind shown in the following figure. We follow the seven-step process for

knowledge engineering.

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:
Does the circuit add properly?

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:

Which gate is connected to the first input terminal?

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:

➢ Logic circuits are made up of wires and gates.

➢ Signal flows through wires to the input terminal of the gate, and each gate

produces the corresponding output which flows further.

➢ In this logic circuit, there are four types of gates used: AND, OR, XOR, and NOT.

➢ 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:

➢ If two terminals are connected then they have the same input signal, it can be

represented as:

∀ t1, t2 Terminal (t1) ∧ Terminal (t2) ∧ Connect (t1, t2) → Signal (t1) = Signal (2).

➢ Signal at every terminal will have either value 0 or 1, it will be represented as:

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

➢ Connect predicates are commutative:

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

➢ Representation of types of gates:

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

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

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

➢ Output of OR gate is 1 if and only if any of its input is 1:

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

➢ Output of XOR gate is 1 if and only if its inputs are different:

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = XOR → Signal (Out(1, g)) = 1 ⇔ Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (In(2, g)).

Output of NOT gate is invert of its input:

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

➢ All the gates in the above circuit have two inputs and one output (except NOT

gate).

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

∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r =Type(g) ∧ (r= AND ∨r= OR ∨r= XOR) → Arity (g, 2, 1).

➢ All gates are logic circuits:

∀ g Gate(g) → Circuit (g).

5. Encode a description of the problem instance:

Now we encode the 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:

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

For AND gate: Type(A1) = AND, Type(A2)= AND

For OR gate: Type (O1) = OR.

And then represent the connections between all the gates.

Note: Ontology defines a particular theory of the nature of existence.

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?

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

∧ 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).
 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(Ψ 1, Ψ2).

o Example: Find the MGU for Unify{King(x), King(John)}

Let Ψ1 = King(x), Ψ 2 = 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(Ψ 1, 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 Ψ 1 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 Ψ 1 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 v i, and the other is a term t i which does not contain
variable v i, 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)}

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 Ψ 2 = 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 Ψ 2 = 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 Ψ 2 = 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 Ψ 2 = 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}.
 Forward Chaining and backward chaining
In artificial intelligence, forward and backward chaining is one of the important topics,

but before understanding forward and backward chaining lets first understand that from

where these two terms came.

Inference engine:

The inference engine is the component of the intelligent system in artificial intelligence,

which applies logical rules to the knowledge base to infer new information from known

facts. The first inference engine was part of the expert system. Inference engine

commonly proceeds in two modes, which are:

a. Forward chaining

b. Backward chaining

Horn Clause and Definite clause:

Horn clause and definite clause are the forms of sentences, which enables knowledge

base to use a more restricted and efficient inference algorithm. Logical inference
algorithms use forward and backward chaining approaches, which require KB in the

form of the first-order definite clause.

Definite clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with exactly one positive
literal is known as a definite clause or strict horn clause.

Horn clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with at most one positive

literal is known as horn clause. Hence all the definite clauses are horn clauses.

Example: (¬ p V ¬ q V k). It has only one positive literal k.

It is equivalent to p ∧ q → k.

Forward Chaining:

Forward chaining is also known as a forward deduction or forward reasoning method

when using an inference engine. Forward chaining is a form of reasoning which start

with atomic sentences in the knowledge base and applies inference rules (Modus

Ponens) in the forward direction to extract more data until a goal is reached.

The Forward-chaining algorithm starts from known facts, triggers all rule whose
premises are satisfied, and add their conclusion to the known facts. This process repeats

until the problem is solved.

Properties of Forward-Chaining:

o It is a down-up approach, as it moves from bottom to top.

o It is a process of making a conclusion based on known facts or data, by starting

from the initial state and reaches the goal state.

o Forward-chaining approach is also called as data-driven as we reach to the goal

using available data.

o Forward -chaining approach is commonly used in the expert system, such as

CLIPS, business, and production rule systems.

Consider the following famous example which we will use in both approaches:

Example:

"As per the law, it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations.

Country A, an enemy of America, has some missiles, and all the missiles were sold

to it by Robert, who is an American citizen."

Prove that "Robert is criminal."

To solve the above problem, first, we will convert all the above facts into first-order

definite clauses, and then we will use a forward-chaining algorithm to reach the goal.

Facts Conversion into FOL:

o It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. (Let's say p, q, and
r are variables)

American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) → Criminal(p) ...(1)

o Country A has some missiles. ?p Owns(A, p) ∧ Missile(p). It can be written in two

definite clauses by using Existential Instantiation, introducing new Constant T1.

Owns(A, T1) ......(2)

Missile(T1) .......(3)

o All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.

?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ......(4)

o Missiles are weapons.

Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)

o Enemy of America is known as hostile.

Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)

o Country A is an enemy of America.

Enemy (A, America) .........(7)

o Robert is American

American(Robert). ..........(8)
Forward chaining proof:
Step-1:

In the first step we will start with the known facts and will choose the sentences which

do not have implications, such as: American (Robert), Enemy(A, America), Owns(A,
T1), and Missile(T1). All these facts will be represented as below.

Step-2:

At the second step, we will see those facts which infer from available facts and with
satisfied premises.

Rule-(1) does not satisfy premises, so it will not be added in the first iteration.

Rule-(2) and (3) are already added.

Rule-(4) satisfy with the substitution {p/T1}, so Sells (Robert, T1, A) is added, which infers
from the conjunction of Rule (2) and (3).

Rule-(6) is satisfied with the substitution (p/A), so Hostile (A) is added and which infers
from Rule-(7).
Step-3:

At step-3, as we can check Rule-(1) is satisfied with the substitution {p/Robert, q/T1, r/A},

so we can add Criminal(Robert) which infers all the available facts. And hence we reached

our goal statement.

Hence it is proved that Robert is Criminal using forward chaining approach.

Backward Chaining:

Backward-chaining is also known as a backward deduction or backward reasoning

method when using an inference engine. A backward chaining algorithm is a form of

reasoning, which starts with the goal and works backward, chaining through rules to

find known facts that support the goal.

Properties of backward chaining:

➢ It is known as a top-down approach.

➢ Backward-chaining is based on modus ponens inference rule.

➢ In backward chaining, the goal is broken into sub-goal or sub-goals to prove the
facts true.
 ➢ It is called a goal-driven approach, as a list of goals decides which rules are

selected and used.

Backward -chaining algorithm is used in game theory, automated theorem proving

tools, inference engines, proof assistants, and various AI applications.

The backward-chaining method mostly used a depth-first search strategy for proof.

Example:

In backward-chaining, we will use the same above example, and will rewrite all the rules.

o American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) → Criminal(p) ...(1)

Owns(A, T1) ........(2)

o Missile(T1)

o ?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ......(4)

o Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)

o Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)

o Enemy (A, America) .........(7)

o American (Robert). ..........(8)

Backward-Chaining proof:

In Backward chaining, we will start with our goal predicate, which is Criminal(Robert),

and then infer further rules.

Step-1:

At the first step, we will take the goal fact. And from the goal fact, we will infer other

facts, and at last, we will prove those facts true. So our goal fact is "Robert is Criminal,"
so following is the predicate of it.
Step-2:

At the second step, we will infer other facts form goal fact which satisfies the rules. So as

we can see in Rule-1, the goal predicate Criminal (Robert) is present with substitution

{Robert/P}. So we will add all the conjunctive facts below the first level and will replace p

with Robert.

Here we can see American (Robert) is a fact, so it is proved here.

Step-3: At step-3, we will extract further fact Missile(q) which infer from Weapon(q), as it

satisfies Rule-(5). Weapon (q) is also true with the substitution of a constant T1 at q.
Step-4:

At step-4, we can infer facts Missile (T1) and Owns(A, T1) form Sells(Robert, T1, r) which

satisfies the Rule- 4, with the substitution of A in place of r. So these two statements are

proved here.
Step-5:

At step-5, we can infer the fact Enemy(A, America) from Hostile(A) which satisfies Rule-
6. And hence all the statements are proved true using backward chaining.
 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.

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.