Artificial Intelligence

Course Code: ECE434

UNIT -IV
Syllabus
UNIT
1. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
2. Problem Solving : state-space Search And Control Strategies
3. Problem Reduction And Game Playing
4. Logic Concept And Logic Programming
5. Prolog Programming Language
MID TERM
1. Knowledge Representations
2. Expert Systems And Applications
3. Uncertainty Measure: Probability Theory And Fuzzy Logic
4. Machine Learning, Ann And Evolutionary Computation
5. Introduction To Intelligent Agents And Natural Language
Processing
References
Text
1. Artificial Intelligence Saroj Kaushik 1st Edition
Cengage Learning 2011
Reference Books
2. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Expert
Systems Dan. W. Patterson 1
st
Edition 1990 PHI
(Pretice Hall India).
3. Artificial Intelligence- A Modern Approach
Stuart Russel Peter Norvig 3rd Edition Pearson, 2009 .
4. Artificial Intelligence Elaine Rich Kevin Knight
3rd Edition 2008 Tata McGraw Hill, India
Topics to be covered in Unit IV
Logic & its Concepts
Meaning of Logic & its need
What is Symbolic Logic & its Types
Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic
Various methods for proving the validity of the formulae:
Natural Deduction System
Axiomatic System
Semantic Tableau Method
Resolution Refutation Method
Predicate Logic
Logic Programming
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC CONCEPTS &
LOGIC PROGRAMMING
Logic was to be a branch of philosophy;
however formal logic has been studied in the
context of foundation of mathematics where it
is referred to as symbolic logic.
Logic is concerned with the principles of
drawing valid inferences from a given set of
true statements.
Hence, it is referred to as symbolic logic.
LOGIC
Logic is concerned with the truth of statements about the world.
Generally each statement is either TRUE or FALSE. Logic includes : Syntax ,
Semantics and Inference Procedure.
Syntax :
Specifies the symbols in the language about how they can be combined to
form sentences. The facts about the world are represented as sentences in
logic.
Semantic :
Specifies how to assign a truth value to a sentence based on its meaning in
the world. It Specifies what facts a sentence refers to. A fact is a claim about
the world, and it may be TRUE or FALSE.
Inference Procedure :
Specifies methods for computing new sentences from an existing sentences.
Branches of Symbolic logic
It is divided into 2 branches:
Propositional logic
Predicate logic
A Proposition refers to a declarative statement
that is either true or false (but not both) in a
given context.
One can infer a new proposition from a given
set of propositions in the same context using
logic.

Example of Propositional Logic
Propositional Calculus
Propositional Calculus (PC) refers to a language
of propositions in which a set of rules are used
to combine simple propositions to form
compound propositions with the help of
certain logical operators.
These logical operators are also called as
connectives;
These operators are: not(~), or (v), and (^),
implies ( ), and equivalence ( ).
Well-formed formula (wff)
A wff is defined is defined as a symbol or a string
of symbols generated by the formal grammar of a
formal language of a formal language.

Properties of wff:
The smallest unit (or an atom) is considered to be
al wff.
If is a wff , then ~ is also a wff.
If and are wff, then (^ ), ( ), ( ) and
( ) are also wff.
Truth Table to prove PC
In Propositional Calculus (PC) is used to provide
operational definitions of important logical
operators.

The logical constants in PC are true or False
and these are represented as T or F.
Truth Table for PC

A

B

~A

A^B

AB

AB

AB
T T F T T T T
T F F F T F F
F T T F T T F
F F T F F T T
Do it yourself
Compute the truth value of using truth table
approach.
: (A V B) ^ (~B A)
Equivalence Laws
NAME OF THE RELATION EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS
Commutative Law A v B B v A
A ^ B B ^ A
Associative Law A v (B v C) (A v B) v C
A ^ (B ^ C) (A ^ B) ^ C
Double Negation ~ (~A) A
Distributive Laws A v (B ^ C) (A v B) ^ (A v C)
A ^ (B v C) (A ^ B) v (A ^ C)
De Morgans Laws ~(A v B) ~A ^ ~B
~(A ^ B) ~A v ~B
Equivalence Laws
NAME OF THE RELATION EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS
Absorption Laws A v (A ^ B) A
A ^ (A v B) A
A v (~A ^ B) A v B
A ^ (~A v B) A ^ B
Idempotence A v A A
A ^ A A
Excluded Middle Law A v ~A T (True)
Contradiction Law A ^ ~ A F (False)
Commonly Used Equivalence Relations A B ~A v B
A B (A B) ^ (B A)
(A ^ B) v (~A ^ ~B)
Propositional Logic

Propositional logic deals with the validity,
satisfiability (also called consistency) and
unsatisfiability (inconsistency) of a formula and
the derivation of a new formula using
equivalence laws.

Propositional Logic
The validity, satisfiability, and unsatisfiability of
a formula may be determined on the basis of
the following conditions:
A formula is said to be valid if and only if it is
a tautology.
A formula is said to be satisfiable if there
exists at least one interpretation for which is
true.
A formula is said to be unsatisfiable if the
value of is false under all interpretations.
Example
Show that the following is a valid argument:
Solution to the Example
Let us symbolize each part of the English
sentence by propositional atoms as follows:
A: It is humid
B: It will rain
Formula can be represented as:
: *(A B) ^ A+ B
Now Solve it to calculate the value of this formula
using Truth Table method
Advantages & Disadvantage of this
method for evaluating any formula
Advantage:
The Truth Table approach is simple and straightforward method by
providing truth values in a given situation.
It is an easy method for evaluating consistency, inconsistency, or validity of
a formula.
Disadvantage:
As no. of values grows, the size of truth table grows exponentially.
For example: in order to validate : (A ^ B ^ C ^ D) (B v E), we require 32
rows and compute the value of for all the 32 interpretations.
Hence, use of truth table approach proves to be wastage of time for various
cases. Therefore, we require some other methods which can help in proving
the validity of the formula directly.
Various methods for proofs &
Deduction
Some methods apart from the Truth Table
method that are concerned with proofs and
deductions are as follows:
Natural Deduction System
Axiomatic System
Semantic Tableau Method
Resolution Refutation Method
Natural Deduction system
Natural deduction system (NDS) is called so
because of the fact that it mimics the pattern
of natural reasoning.

NDS is based on a set of deductive inference
rules.

NDS Rules Table

RULE NAME

SYMBOL

RULE

DESCRIPTION
Introducing ^ (I: ^) If A1, ..An then
A1^.^An
If A1, A2,An is true, then
their conjunction is also true.
Eliminating ^ (E:^)
If A1^ A2 ^^An
then Ai(1<=i<=n)

If A1^ A2^An is true, then
any Ai is also true
Introducing v (I: v)

If any Ai (1<=i<=n)
then A1 v Av..vAn
If any Ai (1<=i<=n) is true,
then A1v A2 v ..v An is also
true
Eliminating v (E:v)

If A1 v A2 v..vAn,
then A is true
If A1 v A2 v A3 v v An are
true, then A is true
NDS Rules Table

RULE NAME

SYMBOL

RULE

DESCRIPTION
Introducing (I: )
If from 1,. n infer
is proved then
1,n is proved
If given that 1, n are true and
from these we deduce then 1^
2^n is also true
Eliminating (E:) If A1A, A1 , then A If A1A is true and A1 is also true,
then A is also true. This is called as
Modus Ponen (MP) rule
Introducing (I: ) If A1A2, A2A1, then
A1 A2
If A1A2 and A2A1 is true, then
A1 A2 is also true

Eliminating (E:) If A1 A2 then A1A2,
A2A1
If A1 A2 is true then A1A2 &
A2A1 are also true

Introducing ~ (I: ~) If from A infer A1 ^ ~A1 is
proved then ~A is proved
If from A (which is true), a
contradiction is proved then truth
of ~A is also proved
Eliminating ~ (E:~) If from ~A infer A1^~A1 is
proved, then A is proved
If from ~A, a contradiction is proved
then truth of A is also proved.
Example
Prove that A ^ (B v C) is deduced from A ^ B

Description Formula Comments
Theorem From A^B infer A^(BvC) To be proved
Hypothesis(given) A ^ B 1
E: ^(1) A 2
E: ^(1) B 3
I: v(3) B v C 4
I: ^(2,4) A ^ (B v C) Proved
Example: NDS HOMEWORK
Prove the theorem infer *(A B) ^ (B C)+ (A C)
Axiomatic System
The axiomatic system is based on a set of 3 axioms and one
rule of deduction.
In axiomatic system, the proofs of the theorem are often
difficult and require a guess in selection of appropriate axiom.
In this system, only two operators are used to form a formula:
not (~) and implies ().
These can be converted as follows:
A ^ B ~(~A v B) ~(A ~B)
A v B ~A B
A B (A B) ^ (B A) ~[(A B) ~ (B A) ]

3 Axioms & 1Rule
Axiom 1: ( )
Axiom 2: [ ( )] [( ) ( )]
Axiom 3: (~ ~) ( )

Modus Ponen Rule
Hypothesis: , and , Consequent:
Example
Establish that A C is a deductive consequence
of ,A B, B C-

Description Formula Comments
Theorem ,A B, B C- - (A C) Prove
Hypothesis 1 A B 1
Hypothesis 2 B C 2
Instance of Axiom 1 (B C) *A (B C)+ 3
MP(2,3) [A (B C)+ 4
Instance of Axiom 2 [A (BC)+ *(AB) (AC)+ 5
MP(4,5) (A B) (A C) 6
MP(1,6) (A C) Proved
Semantic Tableau System in
Propositional Logic
Semantic tableau is a binary tree which is
constructed by using semantic tableau rules
with a formula as a root.
Both NDS and Axiomatic System uses forward
Chaining Approach.
Semantic tableau methods as well as
Resolution Refutation method uses backward
chaining method.
Semantic Tableau Rules list 1
Semantic Tableau Rules list 2

Semantic Tableau Rules list 3
Example: Semantic Tableau
Example: Semantic Tableau.
Example: Semantic Tableau.
Resolution Refutation in
Propositional Logic
Clause is defined as a special formula
containing the boolean operators ~ and v.
Resolution Refutation method is the most
favoured method for developing computer
based systems that can be used to prove
theorems automatically.
In this method, the negation of the goal to be
proved is added to the given set of clauses, and
using the resolution principle, it is shown that
there is a refutation in the new set.
Conversion of Formula to set of
Clauses
There are 2 Normal Forms:
Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF)
Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF)

Conversion of a Formula to its CNF
Eliminate double negation signs by using
~(~A) A
Use De Morgans law to push ~(negation) immediately before the
atomic formula
~(A ^ B) ~A v ~B
~(A v B) ~A ^ ~B
Use Distributive law to get CNF
A v (B ^ C) (A v B) ^ (A v C)
Eliminate the & by using following equivalence laws:
A B ~ A v B
A B (A B) ^ (B A)

Resolution of Clauses
Two clauses can be resolved by eliminating
complimentary pair of literals, from both.
A new clause is formed by disjunction of the
remaining literals in both the clauses.
The complimentary literals are resolved
together by deleting complimentary literals
and hence a new clause is formed.
Example of Resolution
Example of Resolution
Predicate Logic
It is the extension of Propositional Logic.

Due to the disadvantages of propositional
logic, there is the need of predicate logic.

It will provide more better inferencing and also
to have common validation mechanism.
Predicate Logic
The propositional logic, is not powerful enough for all types of
assertions;
Example : The assertion "x > 1", where x is a variable, is not a
proposition because it is neither true nor false unless value of x
is defined.
For x > 1 to be a proposition ,
either we substitute a specific number for x ;
or change it to something like
"There is a number x for which x > 1 holds";
or "For every number x, x > 1 holds".
Predicate logic
Consider example :
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Then Socrates is mortal ,
These cannot be expressed in propositional logic as a finite and logically
valid argument (formula).
We need languages : that allow us to describe properties (predicates)
of objects, or a relationship among objects represented by the
variables .
Predicate logic satisfies the requirements of a language.
Predicate logic is powerful enough for expression and reasoning.
Predicate logic is built upon the ideas of propositional logic.
Using Predicate Logic
1. Marcus was a man.
2. Marcus was a Pompeian.
3. All Pompeians were Romans.
4. Caesar was a ruler.
5. All Pompeians were either loyal to Caesar or hated him.
6. Every one is loyal to someone.
7. People only try to assassinate rulers they are not loyal to.
8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar.


Predicate Logic Example
1. Marcus was a man.
man(Marcus)
2. Marcus was a Pompeian.
Pompeian(Marcus)
3. All Pompeians were Romans.
x: Pompeian(x) Roman(x)
4. Caesar was a ruler.
ruler(Caesar)

Predicate Logic Example
5. All Pompeians were either loyal to Caesar or hated him.
inclusive-or
x: Pompeians (x) loyalto(x, Caesar) v hate(x, Caesar)

exclusive-or
x: Pompeians (x) (loyalto(x, Caesar) . hate(x, Caesar)) v
(loyalto(x, Caesar) . hate(x, Caesar))

Predicate Logic Example...
6. Every one is loyal to someone.
x: -y: loyalto(x, y)

-y: x: loyalto(x, y)




Predicate Logic Example

7. People only try to assassinate rulers they
are not loyal to.
x: y: person(x) . ruler(y) .
tryassassinate(x, y) loyalto(x, y)
8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar.
tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)


Using Predicate Logic
Was Marcus loyal to Caesar?

Using 7 & 8 fact, we can predict
Backward chaining
man(Marcus)
ruler(Caesar)
tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)
x: man(x) person(x)
loyalto(Marcus, Caesar)

Resolution
The basic ideas
KB |= o KB . o |= false
(o v |) . ( v |) (o v )
sound and complete
Conversion to Clause Form
1. Eliminate .
P Q P v Q
2. Reduce the scope of each to a single term.
(P v Q) P . Q
(P . Q) P v Q
x: P -x: P
-x: p x: P
P P
3. Standardize variables so that each quantifier binds a unique
variable.
(x: P(x)) v (-x: Q(x)) (x: P(x)) v (-y: Q(y))

Conversion to Clause Form
4. Move all quantifiers to the left without changing their relative order.
(x: P(x)) v (-y: Q(y)) x: -y: (P(x) v (Q(y))
5. Eliminate - (Skolemization).
-x: P(x) P(c) Skolem constant
x: -y P(x, y) x: P(x, f(x)) Skolem function
6. Drop .
x: P(x) P(x)
7. Convert the formula into a conjunction of disjuncts.
(P . Q) v R (P v R) . (Q v R)
8. Create a separate clause corresponding to each conjunct.
9. Standardize apart the variables in the set of obtained clauses.
Conversion to Clause Form Summary
1. Eliminate .
2. Reduce the scope of each to a single term.
3. Standardize variables so that each quantifier binds a unique variable.
4. Move all quantifiers to the left without changing their relative order.
5. Eliminate - (Skolemization).
6. Drop .
7. Convert the formula into a conjunction of disjuncts.
8. Create a separate clause corresponding to each conjunct.
9. Standardize apart the variables in the set of obtained clauses.
Example
1. Marcus was a man.
2. Marcus was a Pompeian.
3. All Pompeians were Romans.
4. Caesar was a ruler.
5. All Pompeians were either loyal to Caesar or hated him.
6. Every one is loyal to someone.
7. People only try to assassinate rulers they are not loyal to.
8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar.

Example
1. Man(Marcus).
2. Pompeian(Marcus).
3. x: Pompeian(x) Roman(x).
4. ruler(Caesar).
5. x: Roman(x) loyalto(x, Caesar) v hate(x, Caesar).
6. x: -y: loyalto(x, y).
7. x: y: person(x) . ruler(y) . tryassassinate(x, y)
loyalto(x, y).
8. tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar).

Example
Prove:
hate(Marcus, Caesar)

More Questions that can be raised
1. When did Marcus die?
2. Whom did Marcus hate?
3. Who tried to assassinate a ruler?
4. What happen in 79 A.D.?.
5. Did Marcus hate everyone?