This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

1

Contents

1 Formal languages 1.0.1 For the English Language: . . . . . 1.1 Finite-state grammars . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The general form of ﬁnite state grammars 1.3 The Chomsky Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3 3 4 6 6 6 7 7

2 DIFFERENT PROVING TECHNIQUES 2.1 Mathematical Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Contradiction 3.1 Example: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Deduction 8 4.1 Deduction Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Formalization of a natural languages using formal structure

1

Formal languages

In formal language theory, a language is a set of strings. A string is just a sequence of symbols chosen from an agreed-upon set of symbols, called the vocabulary or lexicon. 1.0.1 For the English Language:

• Any sequence of English words from the Oxford English Dictionary like what a language!, let things wont change are examples whereas I go awbe oij ahq will not make English a formal language. •million bs is an example whereas bcacc, the zero-length string epsilon. •Strings over {a, b, c} starting with a like abbb, a, a followed by a Strings over {a, b, c, d} in alphabetical order like abd, ad, bcd, b, abcd are examples whereas dbcd, ba.

2

All the examples are deﬁned with rules given before each example. The idea of generative grammar is to use grammars to deﬁne a set that closely resembles a natural language for instance, all and only the acceptable English sentences. However, not all sets are deﬁnable by all types of grammars. We require a set of rules to accurately describe a natural language.

1.1

Finite-state grammars

To deﬁne (generate) strings over {a, b, c, d} in alphabetical order, let S be the start symbol of the grammar. S → a S1 S → b S2 S → c S3 S→d S1 → b S2 S1 → c S3 S1 → d S2 → c S3 S2 → d S3 → d

Grammar has a corresponding ﬁnite state machine that recognizes all and only the sentences it generates.

1.2

The general form of ﬁnite state grammars

Any grammar having only rules of the form A ! bC where A,B are nonterminals and b is a terminal has a corresponding ﬁnite state machine. Given a string, if a path can be found through the machine, the string is generated by the grammar and vice versa. There are some languages that cannot be recognized by ﬁnite state machines. Sequence of as followed by an equal number of bs like ab, aabb, aaabbb, . . . is an example whereas aabbb, aaaaaaaaaaaabbb do not form the grammer as per the rule.

3

Call the number of as in the sentence being analyzed n. A ﬁnite state machine would need to remember this number n while waiting for the end of the bs. But, by deﬁnition, a ﬁnite state machine will only have enough states to remember some ﬁxed number of as. Hence there exists neither a ﬁnite-state grammar nor a ﬁnite state machine for the language an bn . English is just like an bn Consider a. The cat died. b. The cat the dog chased died. c. The cat the dog the rat bit chased died. d. The cat the dog the rat the elephant admired bit chased died ... f A = {the cat, the dog, the rat, the elephant, the kangaroo, . . .} and B = {chased, bit, admired, ate, befriended, . . .} its clear that it has the structure an bn died. Chomsky and Miller (1963) argued that the obligatory paired dependencies presented by either. . .or, if. . .then or the agreement between verbs and subjects can nest inside one another to an arbitrary depth. The following grammar does not generate the language anbn. It is a context-free grammar, and as such is capable of deriving any number of center-embeddings. S→ab S→aSb

1.3

The Chomsky Hierarchy

Let A,B be nonterminals, b a terminal, alpha nonempty sequence of either kind of symbol, and , γ, δ possibly empty sequences of either kind of symbol. The Chomsky Hierarchy is a classiﬁcation of languages in a subset relationship. Each language has corresponding class of machine that recognizes it. language attribute rule type ﬁnite-state A →bC context-free A→α context-sensitive γ A δ → γαδ automation unrestricted no restrictin machine ﬁnite state machine push down automata linear bounded Turing machine

4

The cardinality of the set of languages deﬁnable by a grammar formalism is called its generative capacity. Natural languages are believed to reside somewhere between context-free and context-sensitive.

5

2

2.1

**DIFFERENT PROVING TECHNIQUES
**

Mathematical Induction

Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical proof typically used to establish that a given statement is true of all natural numbers. It is done by proving that the ﬁrst statement in the inﬁnite sequence of statements is true, and then proving that if any one statement in the inﬁnite sequence of statements is true, then so is the next one. The method can be extended to prove statements about more general well-founded structures, such as trees; this generalization, known as structural induction, is used in mathematical logic and computer science. Mathematical induction in this extended sense is closely related to recursion. 2.1.1 Description

Description The simplest and most common form of mathematical induction proves that a statement involving a natural number n holds for all values of n. The proof consists of two steps: 1. The basis (base case): showing that the statement holds when n = 0 or n = 1. 2. The inductive step: showing that if the statement holds for some n, then the statement also holds when n + 1 is substituted for n. The assumption in the inductive step that the statement holds for some n is called the induction hypothesis (or inductive hypothesis). To perform the inductive step, one assumes the induction hypothesis and then uses this assumption to prove the statement for n + 1. The description above of the basis applies when 0 is considered a natural number, as is common in the ﬁelds of combinatorics and mathematical logic. If, on the other hand, 1 is taken to be the ﬁrst natural number, then the base case is given by n = 1. This method works by ﬁrst proving the statement is true for a starting value, and then proving that the process used to go from one value to the next is valid. If these are both proven, then any value can be obtained by performing the process repeatedly. It may be helpful to think of the domino eﬀect; if one is presented with a long row of dominoes standing on end, one can be sure that: 1. The ﬁrst domino will fall 2. Whenever a domino falls, its next neighbor will also fall,

6

so it is concluded that all of the dominoes will fall, and that this fact is inevitable. Another analogy can be to consider a set of identical lily pads, all equally spaced in a line across a pond, with the ﬁrst and last lily pads adjacent to the two sides of the pond. If a frog wishes to traverse the pond, he must: 1. Determine if the ﬁrst lily pad will hold his weight. 2. Prove that he can jump from one lily pad to another. Thus, he can conclude that he can jump to all of the lily pads, however many lily pads there are, and cross the pond.

3

Contradiction

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the premise that the proposition is false implies a contradiction. Since by the law of bivalence a proposition must be either true or false, and its falsity has been shown impossible, the proposition must be true. In other words, to prove by contradiction that P, show that ¬ P ⇒⊥ or its equivalent ¬ P ⇒ (Q ∧ ¬ Q). Then, since ¬ P implies a contradiction, conclude P. Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or reductio ad absurdum. In a proof by contradiction we assume, along with the hypotheses, the logical negation of the result we wish to prove, and then reach some kind of contradiction. That is, if we want to prove ”If P, Then Q”, we assume P and Not Q. The contradiction we arrive at could be some conclusion contradicting one of our assumptions, or something obviously untrue like 1 = 0.

3.1

Example:

A classic proof by contradiction from Greek mathematics is the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational. If it were rational, it could be expressed as a fraction a/b in lowest terms, where a and b are integers, at least one of √ which is odd. But if a/b = 2, then a2 = 2b2 . Therefore a2 must be even. Because the square of an odd number is odd, that in turn implies that a is even. This means that b must be odd because a/b is in lowest terms. On the other hand, if a is even, then a2 is a multiple of 4. If a2 is a multiple of 4 and a2 = 2b2 , then 2b2 is a multiple of 4, and therefore b2 is even, and so is b.

7

So b is odd and even, a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption√ that 2 can be expressed as a fractionmust be false. One of the ﬁrst proofs by contradiction is the following gem attributed to Euclid. Theorem. There are inﬁnitely many prime numbers. Proof. Assume to the contrary that there are only ﬁnitely many prime numbers, and all of them are listed as follows: p1, p2 ..., pn. Consider the number q = p1p2... pn + 1.The number q is either prime or composite. If we divided any of the listed primes pi into q, there would result a remainder of 1 for each i = 1, 2, ..., n. Thus, q cannot be composite. We conclude that q is a prime number, not among the primes listed above, contradicting our assumption that all primes are in the list p1, p2 ..., pn. Proof by contradiction is often used when you wish to prove the impossibility of something. You assume it is possible, and then reach a contradiction.

4

Deduction

In logic, natural deduction is an approach to proof theory that attempts to provide a deductive system which is a formal model of logical reasoning as it ”naturally” occurs. This approach is in contrast to axiomatic systems which use axioms.

4.1

Deduction Logic

The nine primitive rules 1. The Rule of Assumption (A) 2. Modus Ponendo Ponens (MPP) 3. The Rule of Double Negation (DN) 4. The Rule of Conditional Proof (CP) 5. The Rule of -introduction (I) 6. The Rule of -elimination (E) 7. The Rule of -introduction (I)

8

8. The Rule of -elimination (E) 9. Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA) In system L, a proof has a deﬁnition with the following conditions: 1. has a ﬁnite sequence of well-formed formulas (or wﬀs) 2. each line of it is justiﬁed by a rule of the system L 3. the last line of the proof is what is intended, and this last line of the proof uses only the premises which were given, if any. An example of the proof of a sequent p → q, ¬q ¬p [Modus Tollendo Tollens (MTT)] Formula (wﬀ) Lines in-use and Justiﬁcation (p→q) A ¬q A p A(For RAA) q 1,3,MPP q∧ ¬q 2,4 ¬p 3,5,RAA Q.E.D A deduction (or proof) can be deﬁned precisely in the context of a formal system like the propositional calculus. A proposition is deduced from a collection of premises by applying inference rules repeatedly (see above section). The deduction is a record of this repeated application of inference rules. Assumption number 1 2 3 1,3 1,2,3 1,2 Line number (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

9

REAL LIFE EXAMPLE OF FINITE AUTOMATA: ATM WORKING SYSTEM Conside the following: A={Q, ,δ,q0,F} Q:set of states for ATM system Q={ATM,server1,ask PIN,amount,rejectserver2,abort,give amount,done} :set of inputs =card,check valid,ok,verify PIN,PIN ok,invalid,request balance,bal amount,deduct amount,deduct failed,deducted,End} q0:initial state q0=ATM F:ﬁnal state F=Done

Figure 1: DFA

10

- Types of automata and its applications
- Automata
- QuineBoolos2 (1)
- Chapter13 (1)
- Chapter 10 - Propositional Logic - For Students
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 4 Mathematical Reasoning Example
- Glossary_Pages_from_LPL_textbook.pdf
- QuineBoolos1
- logic2.ppt
- An Algorithm for Evaluating the Validity of Singly-Quantified Monadic Predicate Logic Arguments
- Argumentation Assumptions
- Validity of Arguments
- chp04
- Mathematical Reasoning_ 2012
- Solutions (the Logic Book - 5th Edition)
- Student Solutions Manual to the Logic Book
- Solutions.pdf
- Lecture 01
- Chapter 1 - 2
- Quiz Prep PHI
- 30 More Fallacies
- Mathematical Reasoning
- MA9221-QB
- 0136141390_Ch08_08 (1)
- Rosen More Examples
- 0002.184_Chapter 15
- Chapter 4 Mathematical Reasoning
- Cohen Book
- Absurdum
- Finite Automata

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd