Propositional Logic

or how to reason correctly

Chapter 8 (new edition)
Chapter 7 (old edition)

Goals
Feigenbaum: In the knowledge lies the
power. Success with expert systems. 70s.
What can we represent?
Logic(s): Prolog
Mathematical knowledge: mathematica
Common Sense Knowledge: Lenats Cyc has a
million statement in various knowledge
Probabilistic Knowledge: Bayesian networks

Reasoning: via search

History
300 BC Aristotle: Syllogisms
Late 1600s Leibnitzs goal: mechanization
of inference
1847 Boole: Mathematical Analysis of Logic
1879: Complete Propositional Logic: Frege
1965: Resolution Complete (Robinson)
1971: Cook: satisfiability NP-complete
1992: GSAT Selman min-conflicts

Syllogisms
Proposition = Statement that may be either
true or false.
John is in the classroom.
Mary is enrolled in 270A.
If A is true, and A implies B, then B is true.
If some A are B, and some B are C, then
some A are C.
If some women are students, and some
students are men, then .

Concerns
What does it mean to say a statement is
true?
What are sound rules for reasoning
What can we represent in propositional
logic?
What is the efficiency?
Can we guarantee to infer all true
statements?

Semantics

Model = possible world

x+y = 4 is true in the world x=3, y=1.
x+y = 4 is false in the world x=3, y = 1.
Entailment S1,S2,..Sn |= S means in every
world where S1Sn are true, S is true.
Careful: No mention of proof just
checking all the worlds.
Some cognitive scientists argue that this is
the way people reason.

Reasoning or Inference Systems

Proof is a syntactic property.
Rules for deriving new sentences from old
ones.
Sound: any derived sentence is true.
Complete: any true sentence is derivable.
NOTE: Logical Inference is monotonic.
Cant change your mind.

Proposition Logic: Syntax

See text for complete rules
Atomic Sentence: true, false, variable
Complex Sentence: connective applied to
atomic or complex sentence.
Connectives: not, and, or, implies,
equivalence, etc.
Defined by tables.

Propositional Logic: Semantics

Truth tables: p =>q |= ~p or q

p =>q

~p or q

t
t
t
t

t
f
t
t

t
f
t
t

t
f
t
t

Implies =>
If 2+2 = 5 then monkeys are cows. TRUE
If 2+2 = 5 then cows are animals. TRUE
Indicates a difference with natural
reasoning. Single incorrect or false belief
will destroy reasoning. No weight of
evidence.

Inference

Does s1,..sk entail s?

Say variables (symbols) v1vn.
Check all 2^n possible worlds.
In each world, check if s1..sk is true, that s
is true.
Approximately O(2^n).
Complete: possible worlds finite for
propositional logic, unlike for arithmetic.

Translation into Propositional Logic

If it rains, then the game will be cancelled.
If the game is cancelled, then we clean house.
Can we conclude?
If it rains, then we clean house.

p = it rains, q = game cancelled r = we clean

house.
If p then q.
not p or q
If q then r.
not q or r
if p then r.
not p or r (resolution)

Concepts
Equivalence: two sentences are equivalent
if they are true in same models.
Validity: a sentence is valid if it true in all
models. (tautology) e.g. P or not P.
Sign: Members or not Members only.
Berra: Its not over till its over.

Satisfiability: a sentence is satisfied if it true

in some model.

Validity != Provability
Goldbachs conjecture: Every even number
(>2) is the sum of 2 primes.
This is either valid or not.
It may not be provable.
Godel: No axiomization of arithmetic will
be complete, i.e. always valid statements
that are not provable.

Natural Inference Rules

Modus Ponens: p, p=>q |-- q.
Sound

Resolution example (sound)

p or q, not p or r |-- q or r

Abduction (unsound, but common)

q, p=>q |-- p
ground wet, rained => ground wet |-- rained
medical diagnosis

Natural Inference Systems

Typically have dozen of rules.
Difficult for people to use.
Expensive for computation.
e.g. a |-- a or b
a and b |-- a

All known systems take exponential time in

worse case. (co-np complete)

Full Propositional Resolution

clause 1: x1 +x2+..xn+y (+ = or)

clause 2: -y + z1 + z2 + zm
clauses contain complementary literals.
x1 +.. xn +z1 + zm
y and not y are complementary literals.
Theorem: If s1,sn |= s then
s1,sn |-- s by resolution.
Refutation Completeness.
Factoring: (simplifying: x or x goes to x)

Conjunctive Normal Form

To apply resolution we need to write what
we know as a conjunct of disjuncts.
Pg 215 contains the rules for doing this
transformation.
Basically you remove all and => and
move nots inwards. Then you may need
to apply distributive laws.

Proposition -> CNF

Goal: Proving R

P
(P&Q) =>R
(S or T) => Q
T
Distributive laws:
(-s&-t) or q
(-s or q)&(-t or q).

P
-P or Q or R
-S or Q
-T or Q
T
Remember:implicit
adding.

Resolution Proof

P (1)
-P or Q or R (2)
-S or Q (3)
-T or Q (4)
T (5)
~R (6)

-P or Q : 7 by 2 & 6
-Q : 8 by 7 & 1.
-T : 9 by 8 & 4
empty: by 9 and 5.
Done: order only
effects efficiency.

Resolution Algorithm
To prove s1, s2..sn |-- s
1. Put s1,s2,..sn & not s into cnf.
2. Resolve any 2 clauses that have
complementary literals
3. If you get empty, done
4. Continue until set of clauses doesnt grow.
Search can be expensive (exponential).

Forward and Backward Reasoning

Horn clause has at most 1 positive literal.
Prolog only allows Horn clauses.
if a, b, c then d => not a or not b or not c or d
Prolog writes this:
d :- a, b, c.

Prolog thinks: to prove d, set up subgoals a, b,c

and prove/verify each subgoal.

Forward Reasoning

From facts to conclusions

Given s1: p, s2: q, s3: p&q=>r
Rewrite in clausal form: s3 = (-p+-q+r)
s1 resolve with s3 = -q+r (s4)
s2 resolve with s4 = r
Generally used for processing sensory
information.

Backwards Reasoning:
what prolog does

From Negative of Goal to data

Given s1: p, s2: q, s3: p&q=>r
Goal: s4 = r
Rewrite in clausal form: s3 = (-p+-q+r)
Resolve s4 with s3 = -p +-q (s5)
Resolve s5 with s2 = -p (s6)
Resolve s6 with s1 = empty. Eureka r is true.

Davis-Putnam Algorithm
Effective, complete propositional algorithm
Basically: recursive backtracking with tricks.
early termination: short circuit evaluation
pure symbol: variable is always + or (eliminate the
containing clauses)
one literal clauses: one undefined variable, really
special cases of MRV

Propositional satisfication is a special case of

Constraint satisfication.

WalkSat
Heuristic algorithm, like min-conflicts
Randomly assign values (t/f)
For a while do
randomly select a clause
with probability p, flip a random variable in
clause
else flip a variable which maximizes number of
satisfied clauses.

Of course, variations exists.

Hard Satisfiability Problems

Critical point: ratio of clauses/variables =
4.24 (empirical).
If above, problems usually unsatsifiable.
If below, problems usually satisfiable.
Theorem: Critical range is bounded by
[3.0003, 4.598].

What cant we say?

Quantification: every student has a father.
Relations: If X is married to Y, then Y is
married to X.
Probability: There is an 80% chance of rain.
Combine Evidence: This car is better than
that one because
Uncertainty: Maybe John is playing golf.