Homework Series 1

Zeno de Hoop

Exercise 7.10
(a) The statement Smoke Smoke yields the following truth-table:
Smoke
0
1

Smoke Smoke
1
1

As the statement holds for all models, it is valid.

(b) The statement Smoke F ire yields the following truth-table:
Smoke
0
1
0
1

F ire
0
0
1
1

Smoke F ire
1
0
1
1

As the statement holds for some, but not all models, it is neither valid
nor unsatisfiable.
(c) The statement (Smoke F ire) (Smoke F ire) yields the
following truth-table:
Smoke
0
1
0
1

F ire
0
0
1
1

(Smoke F ire) (Smoke F ire)

1
1
0
1

As the statement holds for some, but not all models, it is neither valid
nor unsatisfiable.
1

Smoke
0
1
0
1

F ire
0
0
1
1

Smoke F ire F ire

1
1
1
1

(d) The statement Smoke F ire F ire yields the above truth-table. As
the statement holds for all possible models, it is valid.
(e) The statement
X := ((SmokeHeat) F ire) ((Smoke F ire)(Heat F ire))
yields the following truth-table:
Smoke
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1

Heat
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1

F ire
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1

X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

As the statement holds for all possible models, it is valid.

(f) The statement X := Big Dumb (Big Dumb) yields the following
truth-table:
Big
0
1
0
1

Dumb
0
0
1
1

X
1
1
1
1

As the statement holds for all possible models, it is valid.

(g) The statement X := (Big Dumb) Dumb yields the truth-table
below. As the statement holds for some, but not for all models, it is
neither valid nor unsatisfiable.

Big
0
1
0
1

Dumb
0
0
1
1

X
1
1
0
1

Exercise 7.14
(a) The second sentence is the only correct sentence. The first sentence is
incorrect because it says that if a person is conservetive, this person is a
radical and electable. However, conservative people who are not radical
are imaginable. The third sentence is also true if a person is a radical,
elective, but not conservative:
R ((C E) E)
reduces in that case to:
T ((F T ) T )
T (T F )
T T
T
So only the second sentence is a correct representation of the assertion.
(b) The first statement is already in Horn form. The second and third
cannot be translated to horn form, as all of them have only one term
before, and multiple terms after the central implication.

Exercise 7.17
(a) Calling the given sentence X, we get:
F ood
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1

Drinks
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1

P arty
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1

X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

As X holds for all models we conclude that it is valid.

(b) We get the following derivation:
((F P ) (D P )) ((F D) P )
((F P ) (D P )) ((F D) P )
(F D P ) (F D P )
This proves (a) as the left and right hand sides of the implication are
the same, and therefore the sentence is valid.
(c) To check whether or not the implication is valid by taking the left hand
as the knowledge base, and then apply resolution to the negation of the
right hand of the statement.
KB := F D P
:= (F D P ) = F D P
Applying resolution to KB with each of the unit clauses then gives:
F D P, F
D P

Then:
D P, D
P
And finnally:
P, P

As the final result is an empty clause, we conclude that the original

statement must be valid.

Exercise 7.19
(S1) This statement gives:
A (C E)
(A (C E)) ((C E) A)
(A (C E)) ((C E) A)
(A C E) ((C E) A)
(A C E) (C A) (E A)
Which is S1 in CNF
(S2) This statement gives:
ED
(E D)
Which is S2 in CNF.
(S3) This statement gives:
(B F ) C
(B F ) C
(B F C)
Which is S3 in CNF.

(S4) This statement gives:

EC
(E C)
Which is S4 in CNF.
(S5) This statement gives:
CF
(C F )
Which is S5 in CNF.
(S6) This statement gives:
CB
(C B)
Which is S6 in CNF.

Exercise 7.19
From S3 and S5 we get:
(B F C), (C F )
(B C)
Using this and S6 we get:
(B C), (C B)
C
Which proves C.
To proof A, we start by using resolution on the first clause of S1 and
S4:
(A C E), (E C)
(A C)

As we have already proven C, we use it here to obtain:

(A C), C
A
This proves A, and thus the statement A C.