Truth, deduction, computation lecture c
-
Upload
vlad-patryshev -
Category
Education
-
view
370 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Truth, deduction, computation lecture c
![Page 1: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Truth, Deduction, ComputationLecture CQuantifiers, part 2 (desperation)
Vlad PatryshevSCU2013
![Page 2: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Remindштп Aristotelian Forms
Aristotle says We write
All P’s are Q’s ∀x (P(x) → Q(x))
Some P’s are Q’s ∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x))
No P’s are Q’s ∀x (P(x) → ¬Q(x))
Some P’s are not Q’s ∃x (P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x))
![Page 3: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Now, by the way…
Why is our logic “first order”?Because we can vary objects, but not properties.
● ∃x Good(x)● ∃P P(scruffy)
If we can vary formulas, we have “second order”
![Page 4: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Quantifiers are not easy
∀x (Cube(x)→Small(x))
∀x Cube(x)
∀x Small(x)
(this one works… but not tautologically?)
You can check it, assume there are just x0 and x1...
![Page 5: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Quantifiers are not easy
Say, x can be a or b (Cube(x)→Small(x))
Cube(x)
Small(x)
(this one works!)
![Page 6: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Quantifiers are not easy
∀x Cube(x)
∀x Small(x)
∀x Cube(x)∧Small(x)
(this one works too… but not tautologically?)
Can we do the same trick?
![Page 7: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Quantifiers are not easy
∃x (Cube(x)→Small(x))
∃x Cube(x)
∃x Small(x)
(this one works… but not tautologically?)
Can we do the same trick?
![Page 8: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Quantifiers are not easy
∃x Cube(x)
∃x Small(x)
∃x Cube(x)∧Small(x)
(oops, this one is no good!)
Can we check?
![Page 9: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Quantifiers are not easy
Say, x can be a or b Cube(a)∨Cube(b)
Small(a)∨Small(b)
(Cube(a)∧Small(a))∨(Cube(b)∧Small(a))
oops, this one is no good!
![Page 10: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Even the book can have it wrong...
How about ∃x (x=x)?
![Page 11: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Compare these two:
● ∀x Cube(x) ∨ ∀x ¬Cube(x)● ∀x Cube(x) ∨ ¬∀x Cube(x)
(what would Aristotle say?)
![Page 12: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
While Exercising: Reduce Complexity
∃y(P(y)∨R(y))→∀x(P(x)∧Q(x)))→(¬∀x(P(x)∧Q(x))→¬∃y(P(y)∨R(y)))
follows from(A→B) → (¬B→¬A)
which is a tautology
This refactoring (known as “introduce a variable”) is called in the book
![Page 13: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Example of such reduction
![Page 14: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Problems with Tautology
Does not work in FOLPropositional
LogicFOL Vague General
Notion of Truthfulness
Tautology FO validity Logical truth
Tautological consequence
FO consequence Logical consequence
Tautological equivalence
FO equivalence Logical equivalence
![Page 15: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Examples of FOL validity
Are these valid?
Are these valid?
1. ∀x SameSize(x,x)2. ∀x Cube(x)→ Cube(b)3. (Cube(b) ∧ b=c) → Cube(c)4. Small(b) ∧ SameSize(b,c) → Small(c)
1. ∀x UgyanolyanMéretű(x,x)2. ∀x Куб(x)→ Куб(b)3. (კუბური(b) ∧ b=c) → კუბური(c)4. 小(b) ∧ UgyanolyanMéretű(b,c) → 小(c)
![Page 16: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
“replacement method” - step 1
Is it valid?
Is it valid?
![Page 17: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
“replacement method” - step 2
Is it valid?
Can we find a counterexample?(Not applicable this specific
example!)
![Page 18: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Ok, let’s try exercise 10.10
![Page 19: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
DeMorgan laws and quantifiers
● Can apply them from outside:○ ¬(∃x Cube(x) ∧ ∀y Dodec(y))
is tautologically equivalent to○ ¬∃x Cube(x) ∨ ¬∀y Dodec(y)
● Can apply them from inside:○ ∀x (Cube(x) → Small(x))
is tautologically equivalent to○ ∀x(¬Small(x) → ¬Cube(x))
(can “prove it” by assuming the opposite)
![Page 20: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Substitution of Equivalent WFF
If P ⇔ Q, then S(P) ⇔ S(Q)
![Page 21: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
DeMorgan Law for Quantifiers
![Page 22: Truth, deduction, computation lecture c](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051411/545ae244b1af9fb66e8b603b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
That’s it for today