Using Predicate Logic

Prepared By: Amit Bindal

 Using Propositional Logic

Representing simple facts

It is raining
RAINING
It is sunny
SUNNY
It is windy
WINDY
If it is raining, then it is not sunny
RAINING  SUNNY

2
 Using Propositional Logic

• Theorem proving is decidable

• Cannot represent objects and quantification

3
 Using Predicate Logic

• Can represent objects and quantification

• Theorem proving is semi-decidable

4
 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.

5
 Using Predicate Logic

1. Marcus was a man.

man(Marcus)

6
 Using Predicate Logic

2. Marcus was a Pompeian.

Pompeian(Marcus)

7
 Using Predicate Logic

3. All Pompeians were Romans.

x: Pompeian(x)  Roman(x)

8
 Using Predicate Logic

4. Caesar was a ruler.

ruler(Caesar)

9
 Using Predicate Logic

5. All Pompeians were either loyal to Caesar or hated him.

inclusive-or
x: Roman(x)  loyalto(x, Caesar)  hate(x, Caesar)

exclusive-or
x: Roman(x)  (loyalto(x, Caesar)  hate(x, Caesar)) 
(loyalto(x, Caesar)  hate(x, Caesar))

10
 Using Predicate Logic

6. Every one is loyal to someone.

x: y: loyalto(x, y) y: x: loyalto(x, y)

11
 Using Predicate Logic

7. People only try to assassinate rulers they are not loyal to.

x: y: person(x)  ruler(y)  tryassassinate(x, y)

 loyalto(x, y)

12
 Using Predicate Logic

8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar.

tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)

13
 Using Predicate Logic

Was Marcus loyal to Caesar?

man(Marcus)
ruler(Caesar)
tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)
 x: man(x)  person(x)
loyalto(Marcus, Caesar)

14
 Using Predicate Logic

• Many English sentences are ambiguous.

• There is often a choice of how to represent
knowledge.

• Obvious information may be necessary for reasoning

• We may not know in advance which statements to

deduce (P or P).

15
 Reasoning

1. Marcus was a Pompeian.

2. All Pompeians died when the volcano erupted in 79 A.D.
3. It is now 2008 A.D.

Is Marcus alive?

16
 Reasoning

1. Marcus was a Pompeian.

Pompeian(Marcus)

2. All Pompeians died when the volcano erupted in 79 A.D.

erupted(volcano, 79)  x: Pompeian(x)  died(x, 79)

3. It is now 2008 A.D.

now = 2008

17
 Reasoning

1. Marcus was a Pompeian.

Pompeian(Marcus)

2. All Pompeians died when the volcano erupted in 79 A.D.

erupted(volcano, 79)  x: Pompeian(x)  died(x, 79)

3. It is now 2008 A.D.

now = 2008

x: t1: t2: died(x, t1)  greater-than(t2, t1)  dead(x, t2)

18
 Resolution
Robinson, J.A. 1965. A machine-oriented logic based on
the resolution principle. Journal of ACM 12 (1): 23-41.

19
 Resolution
The basic ideas

KB |=  KB   |=false

20
 Resolution
The basic ideas

KB |=  KB   |=false

(  )  (  )  (  )

21
 Resolution
The basic ideas

KB |=  KB   |=false

(  )  (  )  (  )

sound and complete

22
 Resolution in Propositional Logic
1. Convert all the propositions of KB to clause form (S).
2. Negate  and convert it to clause form. Add it to S.
3. Repeat until either a contradiction is found or no progress can
be made.
a. Select two clauses (  P) and (  P).
b. Add the resolvent (  ) to S.

23
Resolution in Propositional Logic
Example:

KB = {P, (P  Q)  R, (S  T)  Q, T}

=R

24
 Resolution in Predicate Logic
Example:

KB = {P(a), x: (P(x)  Q(x))  R(x), y: (S(y)  T(y))  Q(y), T(a)}

 = R(a)

25
 Resolution in Predicate Logic
Unification:
UNIFY(p, q) = unifier  where SUBST(, p) = SUBST(, q)

26
 Resolution in Predicate Logic
Unification:
x: knows(John, x)  hates(John, x)
knows(John, Jane)
y: knows(y, Leonid)
y: knows(y, mother(y))
x: knows(x, Elizabeth)

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

UNIFY(knows(John, x), knows(y, Leonid)) = {Leonid/x, John/y}
UNIFY(knows(John, x), knows(y, mother(y))) = {John/y, mother(John)/x}
UNIFY(knows(John, x), knows(x, Elizabeth)) = FAIL
27
 Resolution in Predicate Logic
Unification: Standardization
UNIFY(knows(John, x), knows(y, Elizabeth)) = {John/y, Elizabeth/x}

28
 Resolution in Predicate Logic
Unification: Most general unifier
UNIFY(knows(John, x), knows(y, z)) = {John/y, John/x, John/z}
= {John/y, Jane/x, Jane/z}
= {John/y, v/x, v/z}
= {John/y, z/x, Jane/v}
= {John/y, z/x}

29
 Resolution in Predicate Logic
Unification: Occur check
UNIFY(knows(x, x), knows(y, mother(y))) = FAIL

30
 Conversion to Clause Form
1. Eliminate .
P  Q  P  Q
2. Reduce the scope of each  to a single term.
(P  Q)  P  Q
(P  Q)  P  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))  (x: Q(x))  (x: P(x))  (y: Q(y))

31
 Conversion to Clause Form
4. Move all quantifiers to the left without changing their relative
order.
(x: P(x))  (y: Q(y))  x: y: (P(x)  (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)  R  (P  R)  (Q  R)
8. Create a separate clause corresponding to each conjunct.
9. Standardize apart the variables in the set of obtained clauses.
32
 Conversion to Clause Form
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.
33
 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.

34
 Example
1. Man(Marcus).
2. Pompeian(Marcus).
3. x: Pompeian(x)  Roman(x).
4. ruler(Caesar).
5. x: Roman(x)  loyalto(x, Caesar)  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).

35
 Example
Prove:
hate(Marcus, Caesar)

36
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?

37
 Question Answering
PROLOG:
• Only Horn sentences are acceptable

38
 Question Answering
PROLOG:
• Only Horn sentences are acceptable
• The occur-check is omitted from the unification: unsound
test  P(x, x)
P(x, f(x))

39
 Question Answering
PROLOG:
• Only Horn sentences are acceptable
• The occur-check is omitted from the unification: unsound
test  P(x, x)
P(x, f(x))
• Backward chaining with depth-first search: incomplete
P(x, y)  Q(x, y)
P(x, x)
Q(x, y)  Q(y, x)

40
 Question Answering
PROLOG:
• Unsafe cut: incomplete
A  B, C A
B  D, !, E
D  B, C

 D, !, E, C

 !, E, C

41
 Question Answering
PROLOG:
• Unsafe cut: incomplete
A  B, C A
B  D, !, E
D  B, C

 D, !, E, C

 !, E, C

• Negation as failure: P if fails to prove P

42