Resolution Using

Propositional Logic
Proof with Resolution (Without Contradiction)

• Given the following hypotheses:

• If it rains, Joe brings his umbrella (r  u)

• If Joe has an umbrella, he doesn't get wet (u   w)
• If it doesn't rain, Joe doesn't get wet ( r   w)
prove that Joes doesn't get wet ( w)
• We first put each hypothesis in CNF:

• r  u == ( r  u)
• u   w == ( u   w)
•  r   w == (r   w)
• We then use resolution on the hypotheses to derive the conclusion ( w):

1.  r  u Premise
2.  u   w Premise
3. r   w Premise
4.  r   w L1, L2, resolution
5.  w   w L3, L4, resolution
6.  w L5, idempotence
7. END
 Proofs by Contradiction using Resolution
• We can combine resolution with proof by contradiction (where we assert
the negation of what we wish to prove, and from that premise derive
FALSE) to direct our search towards smaller and smaller clauses, with the
goal of producing FALSE.

• Proof by contradiction:
( p  0) == p

• We use proof by contradiction to drive our search for a proof; we are

looking for the smallest possible goal clause (false), so any use of
equivalences or resolution that brings us to simpler expressions is
working towards that goal.
• We can redo the previous proof (about Joe and his umbrella) using proof by contradiction with
resolution:

1.  r  u Premise

2.  u   w Premise

3. r   w Premise

4. w Negation of conclusion

5.  r   w L1, L2, resolution

6.  w   w L3, L5, resolution

7.  w L6, idempotence

8. NULL (FALSE) L4, L7, resolution