FIRST ORDER LOGIC

&
INFERENCE IN FIRST ORDER LOGIC

By

Predicate Logic

C.PABITHA., AP

1/17/16

Propositional Logic
Propositional logic isnt powerful enough as a

general knowledge representation language.

Impossible to make general statements. E.g.,

all students sit exams or if any student sits

an exam they either pass or fail.

So we need predicate logic.

Wumpus World and propositional logic

Find Pits in Wumpus world
Bx,y (Px,y+1 Px,y-1 Px+1,y Px-1,y) (Breeze next to Pit)

16 rules

Find Wumpus
Sx,y (Wx,y+1 Wx,y-1 Wx+1,y Wx-1,y) (stench next to Wumpus) 16 rules
At least one Wumpus in world
W1,1 W1,2 W4,4 (at least 1 Wumpus) 1 rule
At most one Wumpus
W1,1 W1,2 (155 RULES)

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Predicate Logic: First order Logic

More expressive logic than propositional
Constants are objects: john, apples

Predicates are properties and relations:

likes(john, apples)
Functions transform objects:
likes(john, fruit_of(apple_tree))
Variables represent any object: likes(X, apples)

Quantifiers qualify values of variables

True for all objects (Universal):
X. likes(X, apples)
Exists at least one object (Existential): X. likes(X, apples)

First-order logic
Whereas propositional logic assumes the world

contains facts,
first-order logic (like natural language) assumes
the world contains

Objects: people, houses, numbers, colors, baseball

games, wars,

Relations: red, round, prime, brother of, bigger

than, part of, comes between,

Functions: father of, best friend, one more than,
plus,

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Syntax of FOL: Basic elements

Constants King, John, 2, NUS,...
Predicates Brother, >,...
Functions
Variables

Connectives
Equality

Quantifiers

Predicate Logic

Sqrt( ), LeftLegOf,...
x, y, a, b,...
, , , ,
,

1/17/16

Terms
Term = logical expression that refers to an object.
There are 2 kinds of terms:

constant symbols: Table, Computer

function symbols: LeftLeg(Pete), Sqrt(3), Plus(2,3) etc

Functions can be nested:

Pat_Grandfather(x) = father(father(x))

Terms can contain variables.

No variables = ground term.

7

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Atomic Sentences
Atomic sentences state facts using terms and predicate symbols
P(x,y) interpreted as x is P of y

Examples:

LargerThan(2,3) is false.
Brother_of(Mary,Pete) is false.
Married(Father(Richard), Mother(John)) could be true or false
Note: Functions do not state facts and form no sentence:

Brother(Pete) refers to John (his brother) and is neither true nor false.

Brother_of(Pete,Brother(Pete)) is True.

Binary relation
Predicate Logic

Function

1/17/16

Complex Sentences
We make complex sentences with connectives (just

like in propositional logic).

property

Brother (LeftLeg (Richard ), John ) (Democrat (Bush ))

binary
relation

function
objects

connectives

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Universal Quantification

means for all

Allows
Can

us to make statements about all objects that have certain properties

now state general rules:

x King(x) => Person(x)

x Person(x) => HasHead(x)
i

Integer(i) => Integer(plus(i,1))

Note that
x King(x) Person(x) is not correct!
This would imply that all objects x are Kings and are People
x King(x) => Person(x) is the correct way to say
10

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Existential Quantification
x means there exists an x such that.

(at least one object x)

Allows us to make statements about some object without naming it

Examples:

King(x)

Lives_in(John, Castle(x))

Integer(i) GreaterThan(i,0)

Note that is the natural connective to use with

(And => is the natural connective to use with )

11

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

A Common Mistake to Avoid

Typically is the main connective with
Common mistake: using as the main

connective with

x At(x, KSU) Smart(x)

12

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Another Common Mistake to Avoid

Typically, is the main connective with
Common mistake: using as the main

connective with

13

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Examples
Everyone likes McDonalds
x, likes(x, McDonalds)
Someone likes McDonalds
x, likes(x, McDonalds)
All children like McDonalds
x, child(x) likes(x, McDonalds)
Everyone likes McDonalds unless they are allergic to it
x, likes(x, McDonalds) allergic(x, McDonalds)
x, allergic (x, McDonalds) likes(x, McDonalds)

14

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

All students are smart.

x ( Student(x) Smart(x) )
There exists a student.
x Student(x).

There exists a smart student.

x ( Student(x) Smart(x) )

Every student loves some student.

x ( Student(x) y ( Student(y) Loves(x,y) ))

15

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Every student loves some other student.

x ( Student(x) y ( Student(y) (x = y) Loves(x,y) ))

There is a student who is loved by every other student.

x ( Student(x) y ( Student(y) (x = y) Loves(y,x) ))

Bill is a student.
Student(Bill)

Bill takes either Analysis or Geometry (but not both)

Takes(Bill, Analysis) Takes(Bill, Geometry)
Bill takes Analysis or Geometry (or both).

Takes(Bill, Analysis) Takes(Bill, Geometry)

Bill takes Analysis and Geometry.

Takes(Bill, Analysis) Takes(Bill, Geometry)

Bill does not take Analysis.
Takes(Bill, Analysis).
16

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

No student loves Bill.

x ( Student(x) Loves(x, Bill) )

Bill has at least one sister.
x SisterOf(x,Bill)
Bill has no sister.

x SisterOf(x,Bill)

Bill has at most one sister.

x, y ( SisterOf(x, Bill) SisterOf(y, Bill) x = y )

Bill has exactly one sister.

x ( SisterOf(x, Bill) y ( SisterOf(y, Bill) x = y ))

Bill has at least two sisters.

x, y ( SisterOf(x, Bill) SisterOf(y, Bill) (x = y) )

17

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Properties of Quantifiers
x y is the same as y x
x y is the same as y x

x y is not the same as y x

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

18

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Nesting Quantifiers
Everyone likes some kind of food

y x, food(x) likes(y, x)

There is a kind of food that everyone likes

x y, food(x) likes(y, x)

Someone likes all kinds of food

y x, food(x) likes(y, x)

Every food has someone who likes it

x y, food(x) likes(y, x)

19

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Example Domains
Kinship domain
What is a second cousin once removed, anyway?
Numbers, sets, and lists
This one is a classic. You should understand these, even if
you dont memorize them.
The Wumpus World
Note how much simpler the description is in FOL!
Whatever your domain, if the axioms correctly and

completely describe how the world works, any

complete logical inference procedure will infer the
strongest possible description of the world, given
the available percepts

20

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Remember:
proposition
al
logic

21

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Reminder
Ground term: A term that does not contain a

variable.

A constant symbol
A function applies to some ground term

{x/a}: substitution/binding list

22

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Proofs

23

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Proofs
The three new inference rules for FOL (compared to propositional logic) are:
Universal Elimination (UE):

for any sentence , variable x and ground term g,

x
{x/g}

Existential Elimination (EE):

for any sentence , variable x and constant symbol k not in KB,

x
{x/k}

Existential Introduction (EI):

for any sentence , variable x not in and ground term g in ,

x {g/x}

24

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Proofs

The three new inference rules for FOL (compared to propositional logic) are:
Universal Elimination (UE):

for any sentence , variable x and ground term ,

x e.g., from x Likes(x, Candy) and {x/Joe}
{x/} we can infer Likes(Joe, Candy)

Existential Elimination (EE):

for any sentence , variable x and constant symbol k not in KB,

x e.g., from x Kill(x, Victim) we can infer
{x/k} Kill(Murderer, Victim), if Murderer new symbol

Existential Introduction (EI):

for any sentence , variable x not in and ground term g in ,

e.g., from Likes(Joe, Candy) we can infer
x {g/x} x Likes(x, Candy)

25

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Knowledge engineering in FOL

Identify the task

Assemble the relevant knowledge

Decide on a vocabulary of predicates, functions, and constants

Encode general knowledge about the domain

Encode a description of the specific problem instance

Pose queries to the inference procedure and get answers

26

Debug the knowledge base.

Predicate Logic

See text for full example: electric circuit knowledge base.

1/17/16

Identify the task

The

task will determine what knowledge must be represented in order to connect

problem instances to answers. This step is analogous to the PEAS process for designing
agents.

PEAS

(Performance, Environment, Actuators, Sensors) or

PAGE

(Percept, Action, Goal, Environment) description

Assemble

The

the relevant knowledge

knowledge engineer might already be an expert in the domain, or might need to

work with real experts to extract what they know-a process called knowledge
acquisition

Decide

That

27

on a vocabulary of predicates, functions, and constants

is, translate the important domain-level concepts into logic-level names.

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Encode general knowledge about the domain

The knowledge engineer writes down the axioms for all the vocabulary terms. This
pins down (to the extent possible) the meaning of the terms, enabling the expert to
check the content

Encode a description of the specific problem instance

For a logical agent, problem instances are supplied by the sensors/ percepts

Pose queries to the inference procedure and get

answers
Debug the knowledge base.

28

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Inference in first-order logic

30

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Universal instantiation (UI)

Every instantiation of a universally quantified sentence is

entailed by it:

v
Subst({v/g}, )

for any variable v and ground term g

E.g., x King(x) Greedy(x) Evil(x) yields:

King(John) Greedy(John) Evil(John)

King(Richard) Greedy(Richard) Evil(Richard)
King(Father(John)) Greedy(Father(John)) Evil(Father(John))
.
.
.

31

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Existential instantiation (EI)

For any sentence , variable v, and constant

symbol k that does not appear elsewhere in

the knowledge base:
v
Subst({v/k}, )

E.g., x Crown(x) OnHead(x,John) yields:

Crown(C1) OnHead(C1,John)
provided C1 is a new constant symbol, called
a Skolem constant
32

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

FC: Example Knowledge Base

The law says that it is a crime for an American

to sell weapons to hostile nations. The country

Nono, an enemy America, has some missiles,
and all of its missiles were sold to it by Col.
West, who is an American.

Prove that Col. West is a criminal.

33

FC: Example Knowledge Base

it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to

hostile nations

34

FC: Example Knowledge Base

it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to

hostile nations

x ,y,z American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z)

Criminal(x)

35

FC: Example Knowledge Base

it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to

hostile nations

x ,y,z American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z)

Criminal(x)

Nonohas some missiles

36

FC: Example Knowledge Base

it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to

hostile nations

x ,y,z American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z)

Criminal(x)

Nonohas some missiles

x Owns(Nono, x) Missiles(x)

37

FC: Example Knowledge Base

it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to

hostile nations

x ,y,z American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z)

Criminal(x)

Nonohas some missiles

x Owns(Nono, x) Missiles(x)
all of its missiles were sold to it by Col. West
38

FC: Example Knowledge Base

it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile

nations

x ,y,z American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z)

Criminal(x)

Nonohas some missiles

x Owns(Nono, x) Missiles(x)
Owns(Nono, M1) and Missle(M1)

all of its missiles were sold to it by Col. West

x Missile(x) Owns(Nono, x) Sells( West, x, Nono)
39

FC: Example Knowledge Base

it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations
x ,y,z American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x,y,z) Hostile(z) Criminal(x)
Nonohas some missiles
x Owns(Nono, x) Missiles(x)
Owns(Nono, M1) and Missle(M1)

all of its missiles were sold to it by Col. West

x Missle(x) Owns(Nono, x) Sells( West, x, Nono)
Missiles are weapons
Missle(x) Weapon(x)
40

FC: Example Knowledge Base

An enemy of America counts as hostile

Enemy( x, America ) Hostile(x)

Col. West who is an American

American( Col. West )

The country Nono, an enemy of America

Enemy(Nono, America)

PROVE WEST IS CRIMINAL

41

Unification
We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution such that King(x) and
Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

= {x/John,y/John} works

Unify(,) = if =

p q

Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)

Knows(John,Jane)
Knows(y,OJ)
Knows(y,Mother(y))
Knows(x,OJ)

{x/Jane}}

Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)

Unification
We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution such that King(x) and
Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

= {x/John,y/John} works

Unify(,) = if =

p q

Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)

Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}}
Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}}
Knows(y,Mother(y))
Knows(x,OJ)

Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)

Unification
We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution such that King(x) and
Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

= {x/John,y/John} works

Unify(,) = if =

p q

Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)

Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}}
Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}}
Knows(y,Mother(y))
{y/John,x/Mother(John)}}
Knows(x,OJ)

Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables, e.g., Knows(z17,OJ)

Unification
We can get the inference immediately if we can find a substitution such
that King(x) and Greedy(x) match King(John) and Greedy(y)

= {x/John,y/John} works

Unify(,) = if =

p q

Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)

Knows(John,Jane)
{x/Jane}}
Knows(y,OJ) {x/OJ,y/John}}

Knows(John,x)
Knows(John,x)

Knows(y,Mother(y))
Knows(x,OJ) {fail}

{y/John,x/Mother(John)}}

Unification
Examples

UNIFY(Knows(John,x), Knows(John,Jane)) = {x/Jane}

UNIFY(Knows(John,x), Knows(y,Bill)) = {x/Bill, y/John}
UNIFY(Knows(John,x), Knows(y,Mother(y))= {y/John, x/Mother(John)
UNIFY(Knows(John,x), Knows(x,Elizabeth)) = fail
Last example fails because x would have to be both John and Elizabeth
We can avoid this problem by standardizing:
The two statements now read

UNIFY(Knows(John,x), Knows(z,Elizabeth))

This is solvable:

UNIFY(Knows(John,x), Knows(z,Elizabeth)) = {x/Elizabeth,z/John}

Unification
To unify Knows(John,x) and Knows(y,z)
Can use = {y/John, x/z }
Or = {y/John, x/John, z/John}
The first unifier is more general than the

second.
There is a single most general unifier
(MGU) that is unique up to renaming of
variables.
MGU = { y/John, x/z }

Unification
Unification algorithm:

Recursively explore the two expressions side by

side
Build up a unifier along the way
Fail if two corresponding points do not match

FORWARD CHAINING
&
BACKWARD CHAINING

49

Predicate Logic

1/17/16

Forward Chaining
Forward Chaining

Idea:
Start with atomic sentences in the KB
Apply Modus Ponens
Add new atomic sentences until no further inferences
can be made
Works well for a KB consisting of Situation

Response clauses when processing newly arrived

data

Forward chaining proof

Forward chaining proof

Forward chaining proof

Backward Chaining
Idea:

Given a query, find all substitutions that satisfy

the query.
Algorithm:

Work on lists of goals, starting with original query

Algo finds every clause in the KB that unifies with the

positive literal (head) and adds remainder (body) to list

of goals

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

Backward chaining example

THANK YOU

63

Predicate Logic

1/17/16