For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

22
For Wednesday • Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 • Homework: – Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9

Transcript of For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Page 1: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

For Wednesday

• Read chapter 9, sections 1-3

• Homework:– Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9

Page 2: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Program 1

• Any questions?

Page 3: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Propositional Logic

• Simple logic

• Deals only in facts

• Provides a stepping stone into first order logic

Page 4: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Syntax• Logical Constants: true and false• Propositional symbols P, Q ... are sentences• If S is a sentence then (S) is a sentence.• If S is a sentence then ¬S is a sentence.

• If S1 and S2 are sentences, then so are:

– S1 S2

– S1 S2

– S1 S2

– S1 S2

Page 5: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Semantics• true and false mean truth or falsehood in the world

• P is true if its proposition is true of the world

• ¬S is the negation of S

• The remainder follow standard truth tables– S1 S2 : AND

– S1 S2 : inclusive OR

– S1 S2 : True unless S1 is true and S2 is false

– S1 S2 : bi-conditional, or if and only if

Page 6: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Inference

• An interpretation is an assignment of true or false to each atomic proposition

• A sentence true under any interpretation is valid (a tautology or analytic sentence)

• Validity can be checked by exhaustive checking of truth tables

Page 7: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Rules of Inference

• Alternative to truth-table checking

• A sequence of inference rule applications leading to a desired conclusion is a logical proof

• We can check inference rules using truth tables, and then use to create sound proofs

• We can treat finding a proof as a search problem

Page 8: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Propositional Inference Rules

• Modus Ponens or Implication Elimination

• And-Elimination

• Unit Resolution

• Resolution

Page 9: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Simpler Inference

• Horn clauses

• Forward-chaining

• Backward-chaining

Page 10: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Building an Agent with Propositional Logic

• Propositional logic has some nice properties– Easily understood– Easily computed

• Can we build a viable wumpus world agent with propositional logic???

Page 11: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

The Problem

• Propositional Logic only deals with facts.

• We cannot easily represent general rules that apply to any square.

• We cannot express information about squares and relate (we can’t easily keep track of which squares we have visited)

Page 12: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

More Precisely

• In propositional logic, each possible atomic fact requires a separate unique propositional symbol.

• If there are n people and m locations, representing the fact that some person moved from one location to another requires nm2 separate symbols.

Page 13: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

First Order Logic

• Predicate logic includes a richer ontology:– objects (terms) – properties (unary predicates on terms) – relations (n ary predicates on terms) – functions (mappings from terms to other terms)

• Allows more flexible and compact representation of knowledge

• Move(x, y, z) for person x moved from location y to z.

Page 14: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Syntax for First Order Logic

Sentence AtomicSentence | Sentence Connective Sentence

| Quantifier Variable Sentence | ¬Sentence | (Sentence)

AtomicSentence Predicate(Term, Term, ...) | Term=Term

Term Function(Term,Term,...) | Constant | Variable

Connective

Quanitfier

Constant A | John | Car1

Variable x | y | z |...

Predicate Brother | Owns | ...

Function father of | plus | ...

Page 15: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Terms• Objects are represented by terms:

– Constants: Block1, John – Function symbols: father of, successor, plus

• An n ary function maps a tuple of n terms to another term: father of(John), succesor(0), plus(plus(1,1),2)

• Terms are simply names for objects. • Logical functions are not procedural as in programming

languages. They do not need to be defined, and do not really return a value.

• Functions allow for the representation of an infinite number of terms.

Page 16: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Predicates

• Propositions are represented by a predicate applied to a tuple of terms. A predicate represents a property of or relation between terms that can be true or false: – Brother(John, Fred), Left of(Square1, Square2) – GreaterThan(plus(1,1), plus(0,1))

• In a given interpretation, an n ary predicate can defined as a function from tuples of n terms to {True, False} or equivalently, a set tuples that satisfy the predicate: – {<John, Fred>, <John, Tom>, <Bill, Roger>, ...}

Page 17: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Sentences in First Order Logic• An atomic sentence is simply a predicate applied to a set of

terms. – Owns(John,Car1) – Sold(John,Car1,Fred)

• Semantics is True or False depending on the interpretation, i.e. is the predicate true of these arguments.

• The standard propositional connectives ( ) can be used to construct complex sentences: – Owns(John,Car1) Owns(Fred, Car1) – Sold(John,Car1,Fred) ¬Owns(John, Car1)

• Semantics same as in propositional logic.

Page 18: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Quantifiers• Allow statements about entire collections of objects

• Universal quantifier: x – Asserts that a sentence is true for all values of variable x

• x Loves(x, FOPC) • x Whale(x) Mammal(x) • x y Dog(y) Loves(x,y)) z Cat(z) Hates(x,z))

• Existential quantifier: – Asserts that a sentence is true for at least one value of a variable x

• x Loves(x, FOPC) • x(Cat(x) Color(x,Black) Owns(Mary,x))

• x(y Dog(y) Loves(x,y)) (z Cat(z) Hates(x,z))

Page 19: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Use of Quantifiers• Universal quantification naturally uses implication:

– x Whale(x) Mammal(x) • Says that everything in the universe is both a whale and a mammal.

• Existential quantification naturally uses conjunction: – x Owns(Mary,x) Cat(x)

• Says either there is something in the universe that Mary does not own or there exists a cat in the universe.

– x Owns(Mary,x) Cat(x) • Says all Mary owns is cats (i.e. everthing Mary owns is a cat). Also true if Mary owns

nothing.

– x Cat(x) Owns(Mary,x) • Says that Mary owns all the cats in the universe. Also true if there are no cats in the

universe.

Page 20: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Nesting Quantifiers• The order of quantifiers of the same type doesn't matter:

– xy(Parent(x,y) Male(y) Son(y,x))

– xy(Loves(x,y) Loves(y,x))

• The order of mixed quantifiers does matter: – xy(Loves(x,y))

• Says everybody loves somebody, i.e. everyone has someone whom they love.

– yx(Loves(x,y)) • Says there is someone who is loved by everyone in the universe.

– yx(Loves(x,y)) • Says everyone has someone who loves them.

– xy(Loves(x,y)) • Says there is someone who loves everyone in the universe.

Page 21: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Variable Scope• The scope of a variable is the sentence to which the quantifier

syntactically applies.

• As in a block structured programming language, a variable in a logical expression refers to the closest quantifier within whose scope it appears. – x (Cat(x) x(Black (x)))

• The x in Black(x) is universally quantified

• Says cats exist and everything is black

• In a well formed formula (wff) all variables should be properly introduced: – xP(y) not well formed

• A ground expression contains no variables.

Page 22: For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.

Relations Between Quantifiers• Universal and existential quantification are logically related to

each other: – x ¬Love(x,Saddam) ¬x Loves(x,Saddam) – x Love(x,Princess Di) ¬x ¬Loves(x,Princess Di)

• General Identities – x ¬P ¬x P – ¬x P x ¬P – x P ¬x ¬P – x P ¬x ¬P – x P(x) Q(x) x P(x) x Q(x) – x P(x) Q(x) x P(x) x Q(x)