description logics foundations of first order logic filemotivation we can already do a lot with...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Description Logics
Foundations of First Order Logic
Enrico Franconi
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/˜franconi
Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
(1/41)
![Page 2: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Motivation
• We can already do a lot with propositional logic.
• But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic sentences.
• Atomic formulas of propositional logic are too atomic – they are just statement
which my be true or false but which have no internal structure.
• In First Order Logic (FOL) the atomic formulas are interpreted as statements
about relationships between objects.
(2/41)
![Page 3: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Predicates and Constants
Let’s consider the statements:
• Mary is female
John is male
Mary and John are siblings
In propositional logic the above statements are atomic propositions:
• Mary-is-female
John-is-male
Mary-and-John-are-siblings
In FOL atomic statements use predicates, with constants as argument:
• Female(mary)
Male(john)
Siblings(mary,john)(3/41)
![Page 4: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Variables and Quantifiers
Let’s consider the statements:
• Everybody is male or female
• A male is not a female
In FOL predicates may have variables as arguments, whose value is bounded by
quantifiers:
• ∀x. Male(x) ∨ Female(x)
• ∀x. Male(x) → ¬Female(x)
Deduction (why?):
• Mary is not male
• ¬Male(mary)
(4/41)
![Page 5: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Functions
Let’s consider the statement:
• The father of a person is male
In FOL objects of the domain may be denoted by functions applied to (other)
objects:
• ∀x. Male(father(x))
(5/41)
![Page 6: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Syntax of FOL: atomic sentences
Countably infinite supply of symbols (signature):
• variable symbols: x, y, z, . . .
n-ary function symbols: f, g, h, . . .
individual constants: a, b, c, . . .
n-are predicate symbols: P,Q,R, . . .
Terms: t → x variable
| a constant
| f(t1, . . . , tn) function application
Ground terms: terms that do not contain variables
Formulas: φ → P (t1, . . . , tn) atomic formulas
E.g., Brother(kingJohn, richardTheLionheart)
> (length(leftLegOf(richard)), length(leftLegOf(kingJohn)))
(6/41)
![Page 7: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Syntax of FOL: propositional sentences
Formulas: φ, ψ→ P (t1, . . . , tn) atomic formulas
| ⊥ false
| > true
| ¬φ negation
| φ ∧ ψ conjunction
| φ ∨ ψ disjunction
| φ→ ψ implication
| φ↔ ψ equivalence
• (Ground) atoms and (ground) literals.
E.g. Sibling(kingJohn, richard) → Sibling(richard, kingJohn)
>(1, 2) ∨ ≤(1, 2)
>(1, 2) ∧ ¬>(1, 2)(7/41)
![Page 8: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Syntax of full FOL
Formulas: φ, ψ→ P (t1, . . . , tn) atomic formulas
| ⊥ false
| > true
| ¬φ negation
| φ ∧ ψ conjunction
| φ ∨ ψ disjunction
| φ→ ψ implication
| φ↔ ψ equivalence
| ∀x. φ universal quantification
| ∃x. φ existential quantification
E.g. Everyone in England is smart: ∀x. In(x, england) → Smart(x)
Someone in France is smart: ∃x. In(x, france) ∧ Smart(x)(8/41)
![Page 9: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Summary of Syntax of FOL
• Terms
• variables
• constants
• functions
• Literals
• atomic formula
• relation (predicate)
• negation
• Well formed formulas
• truth-functional connectives
• existential and universal quantifiers
(9/41)
![Page 10: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Semantics of FOL: intuition
• Just like in propositional logic, a (complex) FOL formula may be true (or false)
with respect to a given interpretation.
• An interpretation specifies referents for
constant symbols → objects
predicate symbols → relations
function symbols → functional relations
• An atomic sentence P (t1, . . . , tn) is true in a given interpretation
iff the objects referred to by t1, . . . , tn
are in the relation referred to by the predicate P .
• An interpretation in which a formula is true is called a model for the formula.
(10/41)
![Page 11: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Models for FOL: Example
objects
relations: sets of tuples of objects
< < < <{ , , , , . .. {
functional relations: all tuples of objects + "value" object
< < < <{ , , , , . .. {
(11/41)
![Page 12: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Semantic of FOL: Interpretations
Interpretation: I = 〈∆, ·I〉 where ∆ is an arbitrary non-empty set and I is a
function that maps
• n-ary function symbols to functions over ∆:
fI ∈ [∆n → ∆]
• individual constants to elements of ∆:
aI ∈ ∆
• n-ary predicate symbols to relation over ∆:
P I ⊆ ∆n
(12/41)
![Page 13: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Semantic of FOL: Satisfaction
Interpretation of ground terms:
(f(t1, . . . , tn))I = fI(t1I , . . . , tn
I) (∈ ∆)
Satisfaction of ground atoms P (t1, . . . , tn):
I |= P (t1, . . . , tn) iff 〈t1I , . . . , tn
I〉 ∈ P I
(13/41)
![Page 14: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Examples
∆ = {d1, . . . , dn, n > 1}
aI = d1
bI = d2
BlockI = {d1}
RedI = ∆
I |= Red(b)
I 6|= Block(b)
∆ = {1, 2, 3, . . .}
1I = 1
2I = 2...
EvenI = {2, 4, 6, . . .}
succI = {(1 7→ 2), (2 7→ 3), . . .}
I 6|= Even(3)
I |= Even(succ(3))
(14/41)
![Page 15: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Examples
∆ = {d1, . . . , dn, n > 1}
aI = d1
bI = d2
BlockI = {d1}
RedI = ∆
I |= Red(b)
I 6|= Block(b)
∆ = {1, 2, 3, . . .}
1I = 1
2I = 2...
EvenI = {2, 4, 6, . . .}
succI = {(1 7→ 2), (2 7→ 3), . . .}
I 6|= Even(3)
I |= Even(succ(3))
(14/41)
![Page 16: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Examples
∆ = {d1, . . . , dn, n > 1}
aI = d1
bI = d2
BlockI = {d1}
RedI = ∆
I |= Red(b)
I 6|= Block(b)
∆ = {1, 2, 3, . . .}
1I = 1
2I = 2...
EvenI = {2, 4, 6, . . .}
succI = {(1 7→ 2), (2 7→ 3), . . .}
I 6|= Even(3)
I |= Even(succ(3))
(14/41)
![Page 17: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Semantics of FOL: Variable Assignments
V set of all variables. Function α:V → ∆.
Notation: α[x/d] is identical to α except for the variable x.
Interpretation of terms under I, α:
xI,α = α(x)
aI,α = aI
(f(t1, . . . , tn))I,α = fI(t1I,α, . . . , tn
I,α)
Satisfiability of atomic formulas:
I, α |= P (t1, . . . , tn) iff 〈t1I,α, . . . , tn
I,α〉 ∈ P I
(15/41)
![Page 18: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Variable Assignment example
α = {(x 7→ d1), (y 7→ d2)}
I, α |= Red(x)
I, α[y/d1] |= Block(y)
(16/41)
![Page 19: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Semantics of FOL: Satisfiability of formulas
A formula φ is satisfied by (is true in) an interpretation I under a variable
assignment α,
I, α |= φ :
I, α |= P (t1, . . . , tn) iff 〈t1I,α, . . . , tn
I,α〉 ∈ P I
I, α |= ¬φ iff I, α 6|= φ
I, α |= φ ∧ ψ iff I, α |= φ and I, α |= ψ
I, α |= φ ∨ ψ iff I, α |= φ or I, α |= ψ
I, α |= ∀x. φ iff for all d ∈ ∆ :
I, α[x/d] |= φ
I, α |= ∃x. φ iff there exists a d ∈ ∆ :
I, α[x/d] |= φ(17/41)
![Page 20: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Examples
∆ = {d1, . . . , dn, } n > 1
aI = d1
bI = d1
BlockI = {d1}
RedI = ∆
α = {(x 7→ d1), (y 7→ d2)}
1. I, α |= Block(c) ∨ ¬Block(c)?
2. I, α |= Block(x) → Block(x) ∨ Block(y)?
3. I, α |= ∀. x Block(x) → Red(x)?
4. Θ =
Block(a), Block(b)
∀x (Block(x) → Red(x))
I, α |= Θ?
(18/41)
![Page 21: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Example
Find a model of the formula:
∃y. [ P (y) ∧ ¬Q(y) ] ∧ ∀z. [ P (z) ∨Q(z) ]
∆ = {a, b}
P I = {a}
QI = {b}
(19/41)
![Page 22: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Example
Find a model of the formula:
∃y. [ P (y) ∧ ¬Q(y) ] ∧ ∀z. [ P (z) ∨Q(z) ]
∆ = {a, b}
P I = {a}
QI = {b}
(19/41)
![Page 23: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Satisfiability and Validity
An interpretation I is a model of φ under α, if
I, α |= φ.
Similarly as in propositional logic, a formula φ can be satisfiable, unsatisfiable,
falsifiable or valid—the definition is in terms of the pair (I, α).
A formula φ is
• satisfiable, if there is some (I, α) that satisfies φ,
• unsatisfiable, if φ is not satisfiable,
• falsifiable, if there is some (I, α) that does not satisfy φ,
• valid (i.e., a tautology), if every (I, α) is a model of φ.
(20/41)
![Page 24: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Equivalence
Analogously, two formulas are logically equivalent (φ ≡ ψ), if for all I, α we
have:
I, α |= φ iff I, α |= ψ
Note: P(x) 6≡ P(y)!
(21/41)
![Page 25: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Free and Bound Variables
∀x. (R( y , z ) ∧ ∃ y. (¬P(y,x) ∨ R(y, z )))
Variables in boxes are free; other variables are bound.
Free variables of a formula (inductively defined over the structure of expressions):
free(x) = {x}
free(a) = ∅
free(f(t1, . . . , tn)) = free(t1) ∪ . . . ∪ free(tn)
free(P (t1, . . . , tn)) = free(t1) ∪ . . . ∪ free(tn)
free(¬φ) = free(φ)
free(φ ∗ ψ) = free(φ) ∪ free(ψ), ∗ = ∨,∧, . . .
free(∀x. φ) = free(φ) − {x}
free(∃x. φ) = free(φ) − {x}(22/41)
![Page 26: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Open and Closed Formulas
• A formula is closed or a sentence if no free variables occurs in it. When
formulating theories, we only use closed formulas.
• Note: For closed formulas, the properties logical equivalence, satisfiability,
entailment etc. do not depend on variable assignments. If the property holds
for one variable assignment then it holds for all of them.
• For closed formulas, the symbol α on the left hand side of the “|=” sign is
omitted.
I |= φ
(23/41)
![Page 27: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Entailment
Entailment is defined similarly as in propositional logic.
The formula φ is logically implied by a formula ψ, if φ is true in all models of ψ
(symbolically, ψ |= φ):
ψ |= φ iff I |= φ for all models I of ψ
(24/41)
![Page 28: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
More Exercises
• |= ∀x. (P (x) ∨ ¬P (x))
• ∃x. [ P (x) ∧ (P (x) → Q(x)) ] |= ∃x. Q(x)
• |= ¬(∃x. [ ∀y. [ P (x) → Q(y) ] ])
• ∃y. [ P (y) ∧ ¬Q(y) ] ∧ ∀z. [ P (z) ∨Q(z) ] satisfiable
(25/41)
![Page 29: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Equality
• Equality is a special predicate.
• t1 = t2 is true under a given interpretation (I, α |= t1 = t2)
if and only if t1 and t2 refer to the same object:
t1I,α = t2
I,α
E.g., ∀x. (×(sqrt(x), sqrt(x)) = x) is satisfiable
2 = 2 is valid
E.g., definition of (full) Sibling in terms of Parent:
∀x, y.
Sibling(x, y) ↔
(¬(x = y) ∧
∃m, f .¬(m = f) ∧ Parent(m,x) ∧ Parent(f, x) ∧
Parent(m, y) ∧ Parent(f, y) )
(26/41)
![Page 30: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Universal quantification
Everyone in England is smart: ∀x. In(x, england) → Smart(x)
(∀x. φ) is equivalent to the conjunction of all possible instantiations in x of φ:
In(kingJohn, england) → Smart(kingJohn)
∧ In(richard, england) → Smart(richard)
∧ In(england, england) → Smart(england)
∧ . . .
Typically, → is the main connective with ∀.
Common mistake: using ∧ as the main connective with ∀:
∀x. In(x, england) ∧ Smart(x)
means “Everyone is in England and everyone is smart”
(27/41)
![Page 31: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Existential quantification
Someone in France is smart: ∃x. In(x, france) ∧ Smart(x)
(∃x. φ) is equivalent to the disjunction of all possible instantiations in x of φ
In(kingJohn, france) ∧ Smart(kingJohn)
∨ In(richard, france) ∧ Smart(richard)
∨ In(france, france) ∧ Smart(france)
∨ . . .
Typically, ∧ is the main connective with ∃.
Common mistake: using → as the main connective with ∃:
∃x. In(x, france) → Smart(x)
is true if there is anyone who is not in France!
(28/41)
![Page 32: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Properties of quantifiers
(∀x.∀y.φ) is the same as (∀y.∀x.φ) (Why?)
(∃x.∃y.φ) is the same as (∃y. ∃x.φ) (Why?)
(∃x.∀y.φ) is not the same as (∀y. ∃x.φ)
∃x.∀y.Loves(x, y)
“There is a person who loves everyone in the world”
∀y.∃x.Loves(x, y)
“Everyone in the world is loved by at least one person” (not necessarily the same)
Quantifier duality: each can be expressed using the other:
∀x.Likes(x, iceCream) ¬∃x.¬Likes(x, iceCream)
∃x.Likes(x, broccoli) ¬∀x.¬Likes(x, broccoli)
(29/41)
![Page 33: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Equivalences
(∀x.φ) ∧ ψ ≡ ∀x. (φ ∧ ψ) if x not free in ψ
(∀x.φ) ∨ ψ ≡ ∀x. (φ ∨ ψ) if x not free in ψ
(∃x.φ) ∧ ψ ≡ ∃x. (φ ∧ ψ) if x not free in ψ
(∃x.φ) ∨ ψ ≡ ∃x. (φ ∨ ψ) if x not free in ψ
∀x.φ ∧ ∀x.ψ ≡ ∀x. (φ ∧ ψ)
∃x.φ ∨ ∃x.ψ ≡ ∃x. (φ ∨ ψ)
¬∀x.φ ≡ ∃x.¬φ
¬∃x.φ ≡ ∀x.¬φ
& propositional equivalences
(30/41)
![Page 34: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The Prenex Normal Form
Quantifier prefix + (quantifier free) matrix
∀x1∀x2∃x3 . . . ∀xnφ
1. Elimination of → and ↔
2. push ¬ inwards
3. pull quantifiers outwards
E.g. ¬∀x. ((∀x. p(x)) → q(x))
¬∀x. (¬(∀x. p(x)) ∨ q(x))
∃x. ((∀x. p(x)) ∧ ¬q(x))
and now?
Notation: renaming of variables. Let φ[x/t] be the formula φ where all
occurrences of x have been replaced by the term t.(31/41)
![Page 35: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
The Prenex Normal Form: theorems
Lemma. Let y be a variable that does not occur in φ.
Then we have ∀xφ ≡ (∀xφ)[x/y] and ∃xφ ≡ (∃xφ)[x/y].
Theorem. There is an algorithm that computes for every formula its prenex
normal form.
(32/41)
![Page 36: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
FOL at work: reasoning by cases
Γ = FRIEND(john,susan) ∧
FRIEND(john,andrea) ∧
LOVES(susan,andrea) ∧
LOVES(andrea,bill) ∧
Female(susan) ∧
¬Female(bill)
bill: ¬Female
andrea susan: Female
john
?
�
��
��
@@
@@R
FRIEND FRIEND
LOVES
LOVES
(33/41)
![Page 37: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Γ = bill: ¬Female
andrea susan: Female
john
?
�
��
��
@@
@@R
FRIEND FRIEND
LOVES
LOVES
Does John have a female friend loving a male (i.e. not female) person?
YES!
Γ |= ∃X, Y . FRIEND(john, X) ∧ Female(X) ∧
LOVES(X, Y ) ∧ ¬Female(Y )
(34/41)
![Page 38: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Γ = bill: ¬Female
andrea susan: Female
john
?
�
��
��
@@
@@R
FRIEND FRIEND
LOVES
LOVES
Does John have a female friend loving a male (i.e. not female) person?
YES!
Γ |= ∃X, Y . FRIEND(john, X) ∧ Female(X) ∧
LOVES(X, Y ) ∧ ¬Female(Y )
(34/41)
![Page 39: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
bill: ¬Female
[¬Female] andrea susan: Female
john
?
�
��
��
@@
@@R
FRIEND FRIEND
LOVES
LOVES
FRIEND(john,susan), Female(susan),
LOVES(susan,andrea), ¬ Female(andrea)
(35/41)
![Page 40: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
bill: ¬Female
[Female] andrea susan: Female
john
?
�
��
��
@@
@@R
FRIEND FRIEND
LOVES
LOVES
FRIEND(john,andrea), Female(andrea),
LOVES(andrea,bill), ¬ Female(bill)
(36/41)
![Page 41: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Theories and Models
Γ1 = FRIEND(john, susan) ∧
FRIEND(john, andrea) ∧
LOVES(susan, andrea) ∧
LOVES(andrea, bill) ∧
Female(susan) ∧
Male(bill) ∧
∀X . Male(X) ↔ ¬Female(X)
bill: Male Male.= ¬Female
andrea susan: Female
john
?
�
��
��
@@
@@R
FRIEND FRIEND
LOVES
LOVES
(37/41)
![Page 42: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Γ1 = bill: Male Male.= ¬Female
andrea susan: Female
john
?
�
��
��
@@
@@R
FRIEND FRIEND
LOVES
LOVES
Does John have a female friend loving a male person?
Γ1 |= ∃X, Y . FRIEND(john, X) ∧ Female(X) ∧
LOVES(X, Y ) ∧ Male(Y )
(38/41)
![Page 43: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Γ =FRIEND(john,susan) ∧
FRIEND(john,andrea) ∧
LOVES(susan,andrea) ∧
LOVES(andrea,bill) ∧
Female(susan) ∧
¬Female(bill)
∆ = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI = {susan}
Γ1 = FRIEND(john, susan) ∧
FRIEND(john, andrea) ∧
LOVES(susan, andrea) ∧
LOVES(andrea, bill) ∧
Female(susan) ∧
Male(bill) ∧
∀X . Male(X) ↔ ¬Female(X)
∆I1 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI1 = {susan, andrea}
MaleI1 = {bill, john}
∆I2 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI2 = {susan}
MaleI2 = {bill, andrea, john}
∆I1 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI1 = {susan, andrea, john}
MaleI1 = {bill}
∆I2 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI2 = {susan, john}
MaleI2 = {bill, andrea}
(39/41)
![Page 44: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Γ =FRIEND(john,susan) ∧
FRIEND(john,andrea) ∧
LOVES(susan,andrea) ∧
LOVES(andrea,bill) ∧
Female(susan) ∧
¬Female(bill)
∆ = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI = {susan}
Γ1 = FRIEND(john, susan) ∧
FRIEND(john, andrea) ∧
LOVES(susan, andrea) ∧
LOVES(andrea, bill) ∧
Female(susan) ∧
Male(bill) ∧
∀X . Male(X) ↔ ¬Female(X)
∆I1 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI1 = {susan, andrea}
MaleI1 = {bill, john}
∆I2 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI2 = {susan}
MaleI2 = {bill, andrea, john}
∆I1 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI1 = {susan, andrea, john}
MaleI1 = {bill}
∆I2 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI2 = {susan, john}
MaleI2 = {bill, andrea}
(39/41)
![Page 45: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Γ =FRIEND(john,susan) ∧
FRIEND(john,andrea) ∧
LOVES(susan,andrea) ∧
LOVES(andrea,bill) ∧
Female(susan) ∧
¬Female(bill)
∆ = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI = {susan}
Γ1 = FRIEND(john, susan) ∧
FRIEND(john, andrea) ∧
LOVES(susan, andrea) ∧
LOVES(andrea, bill) ∧
Female(susan) ∧
Male(bill) ∧
∀X . Male(X) ↔ ¬Female(X)
∆I1 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI1 = {susan, andrea}
MaleI1 = {bill, john}
∆I2 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI2 = {susan}
MaleI2 = {bill, andrea, john}
∆I1 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI1 = {susan, andrea, john}
MaleI1 = {bill}
∆I2 = {john, susan, andrea, bill}
FemaleI2 = {susan, john}
MaleI2 = {bill, andrea}(39/41)
![Page 46: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Γ 6|= Female(andrea)
Γ 6|= ¬Female(andrea)
Γ1 6|= Female(andrea)
Γ1 6|= ¬Female(andrea)
Γ1 6|= Male(andrea)
Γ1 6|= ¬Male(andrea)
(40/41)
![Page 47: Description Logics Foundations of First Order Logic fileMotivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic](https://reader030.vdocuments.site/reader030/viewer/2022041212/5dd1196cd6be591ccb643786/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Exercise
� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �
� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �� � � �
?
Is it true that the top block is on a white block touching a black block?
(41/41)