CMPUT 272 (Stewart) University of Alberta Lecture 7

Reading: Epp 3.4

Rules of inference and formal proofs in predicate logic

To prove that X logically implies Y ,

show that every interpretation that makes X true also makes Y true

by giving:

an informal argument or

a formal proof using rules of inference and logical equivalences.

1
Valid Rules of Inference for Quantifiers [Epp 3.4, Grimaldi 2.5]
1. Universal Instantiation (Specification)

∀x ∈ D, P (x)
∴ P (a) where a is any particular element of D

2. Universal Generalization

P (a) where a is an arbitrary element of D

∴ ∀x ∈ D, P (x)

3. Existential Instantiation (Specification)

∃x ∈ D such that P (x)

∴ P (a) for some a in D

4. Existential Generalization

P (a) where a is an element of D

∴ ∃x ∈ D such that P (x)

5. Universal Modus Ponens

∀x ∈ D, (P (x) → Q(x))
P (a) where a is an element of D
∴ Q(a)

6. Universal Modus Tollens

∀x ∈ D, (P (x) → Q(x))
∼ Q(a) where a is an element of D
∴ ∼ P (a)

7. Universal Transitivity

∀x ∈ D, (P (x) → Q(x))
∀x ∈ D, (Q(x) → R(x))
∴ ∀x ∈ D, (P (x) → R(x))

2
Proofs in Predicate Logic

Example: The domain of all variables is D.

∀x, (P (x) ∨ ∼ Q(x))

∀x, (P (x) → R(x))
∀x, (∼ Q(x) → R(x))
∴ ∀x, R(x)

1. ∀x, (P (x) ∨ ∼ Q(x)) Premise

2. ∀x, (P (x) → R(x)) Premise

3. ∀x, (∼ Q(x) → R(x)) Premise

4. P (a) ∨ ∼ Q(a) 1, Universal Instantiation

a is an arbitrary element of the domain

(↑ needed later for step 8)

5. P (a) → R(a) 2, Universal Instantiation

6. ∼ Q(a) → R(a) 3, Universal Instantiation

7. R(a) 4, 5, 6, Proof by Division into Cases

8. ∴ ∀x, R(x) 7, Universal Generalization

3
Example: The domain of all variables is D.

∃x such that (C(x)∧ ∼ B(x))

∀x, (C(x) → P (x))
∴ ∃x such that (P (x)∧ ∼ B(x))

1. ∃x such that (C(x)∧ ∼ B(x)) Premise

2. ∀x, (C(x) → P (x)) Premise

3. C(a)∧ ∼ B(a) 1, EI

4. C(a) 3, Specialization

5. P (a) 2, 4, Universal Modus Ponens

6. ∼ B(a) 3, Specialization

7. P (a)∧ ∼ B(a) 5, 6, Conjunction

8. ∴ ∃x such that (P (x)∧ ∼ B(x)) 7, EG

4
Example: The domain of all variables is D.

∀x, (P (x) ∨ Q(x))

∀x, ((∼ P (x) ∧ Q(x)) → R(x))
∴ ∀x, (∼ R(x) → P (x))

1. ∀x, (P (x) ∨ Q(x)) Premise

2. ∀x, ((∼ P (x) ∧ Q(x)) → R(x)) Premise

3. ∼ R(a) Assume for Hypothetical Reasoning,

a is arbitrary (needed later for step 13)

4. ∼ (∼ P (a) ∧ Q(a)) 2, 3, Universal Modus Tollens

5. ∼∼ P (a)∨ ∼ Q(a) 4, De Morgan’s law

6. P (a)∨ ∼ Q(a) 5, Double Negation

7. P (a) ∨ Q(a) 1, Universal Instantiation

8. (P (a) ∨ Q(a)) ∧ (P (a)∨ ∼ Q(a)) 6, 7, Conjunction

9. P (a) ∨ (Q(a)∧ ∼ Q(a)) 8, Distributive law

10. P (a) ∨ c 9, Negation law

11. P (a) 10, Identity law

12. ∼ R(a) → P (a) 3-11, Hypothetical Reasoning

13. ∴ ∀x, (∼ R(x) → P (x)) 12, Universal Generalization

5
Logic and Theoretical Computer Science

Reading: Mathematics for Computer Science MIT (2010) Readings Chapter

1.5, Epp 6.4

The problem SAT: Is a given propositional logic statement form satisfiable?

• decidable, that is, there is an algorithm that gives a yes/no answer:
– compute the truth table
– check if there is a T in at least one row
• But there are 2n rows in the truth table for a statement form with n
variables.
– 2100 is a 31 digit number
– At 1 microsecond / row, it would take 400 trillion centuries
to compute a truth table with 2100 rows
• Is there a more efficient algorithm?
– No one knows!
– SAT plays an important role the theory of NP-completeness
– P (polynomial) ⊆ NP (nondeterministic polynomial)
– Is P = NP? ($1, 000, 000 prize: Clay Mathematics Institute Cambridge MA)
– SAT solvers can solve any NP problem
(though not in polynomial time)

Another problem: Is a given predicate logic statement satisfiable?

• undecidable: there cannot exist an algorithm that gives a yes/no answer.
• related to the Entscheidungsproblem: Is a given predicate logic state-
ment true under all interpretations? which was posed by Hilbert in 1928
and shown to be undecidable by Turing and Church in 1936.
• related to the halting problem

6
Example: Transforming an instance of exam scheduling to a SAT instance

The problem:
Given integers n and k, and a set of conflicts: C = {(i, j) | where 1 ≤ i <
j ≤ n and exam i cannot be scheduled at the same time as exam j},
can n exams be scheduled in k timeslots such that no conflicting exams are
scheduled in the same timeslot?

We construct a statement form in propositional logic that is satisfiable if and

only if the answer to the exam scheduling problem is yes.

There are nk variables: xij where 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ j ≤ k.

Variable xij means “Exam i is scheduled in timeslot j.”

The statement form is the conjunction of the following subformulas:

Each exam is scheduled into a timeslot:

x11 ∨ x12 ∨ · · · ∨ x1k
x21 ∨ x22 ∨ · · · ∨ x2k
..
.
xn1 ∨ xn2 ∨ · · · ∨ xnk

No exam is scheduled in two timeslots:

∼ (x1i ∧ x1j )
∼ (x2i ∧ x2j ) for all 1 ≤ i < j ≤ k
..
.
∼ (xni ∧ xnj )

No conflicting exams are scheduled in the same timeslot:

∼ (xi1 ∧ xj1 )
∼ (xi2 ∧ xj2 ) for all (i, j) ∈ C
..
.
∼ (xik ∧ xjk )