Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lecture 5
Predicate logic
Milos Hauskrecht
milos@cs.pitt.edu
5329 Sennott Square
Negation of quantifiers
English statement:
• Nothing is perfect.
• Translation: ¬ x Perfect(x)
M. Hauskrecht
1
Negation of quantifiers
English statement:
• Nothing is perfect.
• Translation: ¬ x Perfect(x)
M. Hauskrecht
Negation of quantifiers
English statement:
• It is not the case that all dogs are fleabags.
• Translation: ¬ x Dog(x) Fleabag(x)
M. Hauskrecht
2
Negation of quantifiers
English statement:
• It is not the case that all dogs are fleabags.
• Translation: ¬ x Dog(x) Fleabag(x)
Negation Equivalent
¬x P(x) x ¬P(x)
¬x P(x) x ¬P(x)
M. Hauskrecht
3
Formal and informal proofs
Important questions:
– When is the argument correct?
– How to construct a correct argument, what method to use?
4
Theorems and proofs
• Theorem: a statement that can be shown to be true.
– Typically the theorem looks like this:
(p1 p2 p3 … pn ) q
Premises conclusion
• Example:
Fermat’s Little theorem:
– If p is a prime and a is an integer not divisible by p,
then: a p 1 1 mod p
Premises conclusion
• Example:
Premises (hypotheses)
Fermat’s Little theorem:
– If p is a prime and a is an integer not divisible by p,
then: a p 1 1 mod p
conclusion
5
Formal proofs
Proof:
• Provides an argument supporting the validity of the statement
• Proof of the theorem:
– shows that the conclusion follows from premises
– May use:
• Premises
• Axioms
• Results of other theorems
Formal proofs:
• steps of the proofs follow logically from the set of premises and
axioms
Formal proofs
• Formal proofs:
– show that steps of the proofs follow logically from the set of
hypotheses and axioms
premises
conclusion
+
axioms
+
proved
theorems
6
Using logical equivalence rules
Proofs based on logical equivalences. A proposition or its part
can be transformed using a sequence of equivalence rewrites till
some conclusion can be reached.
Formal proofs
Allow us to infer new True statements from known True statements
premises
conclusion
+
axioms
+
proved
theorems
True ?
True
7
Rules of inference
Rules of inference:
• Allow us to infer new True statements from existing True
statements
• Represent logically valid inference patterns
Example:
• Modus Ponens, or the Law of Detachment
• Rule of inference
p
pq
q
Rules of inference
Rules of inference: logically valid inference patterns
Example;
• Modus Ponens, or the Law of Detachment
• Rule of inference p
pq
q
• Given p is true and the implication p q is true then q is true.
p q pq
False False True
False True True
True False False
True True True
CS 441 Discrete mathematics for CS M. Hauskrecht
8
Rules of inference
Rules of inference: logically valid inference patterns
Example;
• Modus Ponens, or the Law of Detachment
• Rule of inference p
pq
q
• Given p is true and the implication p q is true then q is true.
p q pq
False False True
False True True
True False False
True True True
CS 441 Discrete mathematics for CS M. Hauskrecht
Rules of inference
Rules of inference: logically valid inference patterns
Example:
• Modus Ponens, or the Law of Detachment
• Rules of inference
p
pq
q
9
Rules of inference
• Addition
p (p q) p_____
pq
• Example: It is below freezing now. Therefore, it is below
freezing or raining snow.
• Simplification
(p q) p pq
p
• Example: It is below freezing and snowing. Therefore it is
below freezing.
Rules of inference
• Modus Tollens (modus ponens for the contrapositive)
[ ¬q (p q)] ¬p ¬q
pq
¬p
• Hypothetical Syllogism
[(p q) (q r)] (p r) pq
qr
pr
• Disjunctive Syllogism
[(p q) ¬p] q pq
¬p___
q
CS 441 Discrete mathematics for CS M. Hauskrecht
10
Rules of inference
• Logical equivalences (discussed earlier)
A <=> B
A B is a tautology
Rules of inference
• A valid argument is one built using the rules of inference from
premises (hypotheses). When all premises are true the argument
should lead us to the correct conclusion.
• (p1 p2 p3 … pn ) q
11
Applying rules of inference
12
Applying rules of inference
• Approach:
• p = It is sunny this afternoon, q = it is colder than yesterday,
r = We will go swimming , s= we will take a canoe trip
• t= We will be home by sunset
13
Proofs using rules of inference
Translations:
• Assumptions: ¬ p q, r p, ¬ r s, s t
• We want to show: t
Proof:
• 1. ¬ p q Hypothesis
• 2. ¬ p Simplification
• 3. r p Hypothesis
• 4. ¬ r Modus tollens (step 2 and 3)
• 5. ¬ r s Hypothesis
• 6. s Modus ponens (steps 4 and 5)
• 7. s t Hypothesis
• 8. t Modus ponens (steps 6 and 7)
• end of proof
CS 441 Discrete mathematics for CS M. Hauskrecht
Informal proofs
Proving theorems in practice:
• The steps of the proofs are not expressed in any formal language
as e.g. propositional logic
• Steps are argued less formally using English, mathematical
formulas and so on
• One must always watch the consistency of the argument made,
logic and its rules can often help us to decide the soundness of the
argument if it is in question
14
Methods of proving theorems
Basic methods to prove the theorems:
• Direct proof
– p q is proved by showing that if p is true then q follows
• Indirect proof
– Show the contrapositive ¬q ¬p. If ¬q holds then ¬p follows
• Proof by contradiction
– Show that (p ¬ q) contradicts the assumptions
• Proof by cases
• Proofs of equivalence
– p q is replaced with (p q) (q p)
Direct proof
• p q is proved by showing that if p is true then q follows
Proof:
• Assume the hypothesis is true, i.e. suppose n is odd.
• Then n = 2k + 1, where k is an integer.
n2 = (2k + 1)2
= 4k2 + 4k + 1
= 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1
• Therefore, n2 is odd.
15
Indirect proof
• To show p q prove its contrapositive ¬q ¬p
• Why? p q and ¬q ¬p are equivalent !!!
• Assume ¬q is true, show that ¬p is true.
Indirect proof
• To show p q prove its contrapositive ¬q ¬p
• Why? p q and ¬q ¬p are equivalent !!!
• Assume ¬q is true, show that ¬p is true.
16