Lecture 2 The Language of S5

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Knowledge Representation Introduction KR and Logic.
Advertisements

Preview of SL Logic Class 3. Either it is raining or it is snowing A A: It is raining B: It is snowing B  : Or 
CS344 : Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Lecture 9,10,11- Logic; Deduction Theorem 23/1/09 to 30/1/09.
Logic Use mathematical deduction to derive new knowledge.
Syllabus Every Week: 2 Hourly Exams +Final - as noted on Syllabus
TR1413: Discrete Mathematics For Computer Science Lecture 3: Formal approach to propositional logic.
1 Chapter 7 Propositional and Predicate Logic. 2 Chapter 7 Contents (1) l What is Logic? l Logical Operators l Translating between English and Logic l.
CS 4700: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence
EE1J2 - Slide 1 EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 6 Limitations of propositional logic Introduction to predicate logic Symbols, terms and formulae, Parse.
EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 5 Analysis of arguments (continued) More example proofs Formalisation of arguments in natural language Proof by contradiction.
The Language of Propositional Logic The Syntax and Semantics of PL.
Intro to Discrete Structures
Artificial Intelligence: Definition “... the branch of computer science that is concerned with the automation of intelligent behavior.” (Luger, 2009) “The.
1 Chapter 7 Propositional and Predicate Logic. 2 Chapter 7 Contents (1) l What is Logic? l Logical Operators l Translating between English and Logic l.
1 Knowledge Based Systems (CM0377) Lecture 4 (Last modified 5th February 2001)
Of 33 lecture 12: propositional logic – part I. of 33 propositions and connectives … two-valued logic – every sentence is either true or false some sentences.
Programming Languages and Design Lecture 3 Semantic Specifications of Programming Languages Instructor: Li Ma Department of Computer Science Texas Southern.
October 17, 2012Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Lecture 11: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning I 1Semantics In propositional logic, we associate.
Logical Agents Chapter 7. Outline Knowledge-based agents Logic in general Propositional (Boolean) logic Equivalence, validity, satisfiability.
LECTURE 19 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL OBJECTION DEPENDS UPON A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION WE MIGHT REASONABLY SUSPEND.
CS6133 Software Specification and Verification
Of 38 lecture 13: propositional logic – part II. of 38 propositional logic Gentzen system PROP_G design to be simple syntax and vocabulary the same as.
What makes communication by language possible? “What makes the task [of understanding others] practicable at all is the structure the normative character.
LDK R Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation Propositional Logic Originally by Alessandro Agostini and Fausto Giunchiglia Modified by Fausto Giunchiglia,
Albert Gatt LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 3. Aims This lecture is divided into two parts: 1. We make our first attempts at formalising the notion of.
Propositional Logic Rather than jumping right into FOL, we begin with propositional logic A logic involves: §Language (with a syntax) §Semantics §Proof.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Lecture 2 Propositional Calculus.
1 Lecture 3 The Languages of K, T, B and S4. 2 Last time we extended the language PC to the language S5 by adding two new symbols ‘□’ (for ‘It is necessary.
Lecture 041 Predicate Calculus Learning outcomes Students are able to: 1. Evaluate predicate 2. Translate predicate into human language and vice versa.
March 3, 2016Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Lecture 12: Knowledge Representation & Reasoning I 1 Back to “Serious” Topics… Knowledge Representation.
Law of logic Lecture 4.
CS.462 Artificial Intelligence SOMCHAI THANGSATHITYANGKUL Lecture 04 : Logic.
Knowledge Representation Lecture 2 out of 5. Last Week Intelligence needs knowledge We need to represent this knowledge in a way a computer can process.
CS621: Artificial Intelligence Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay Lecture–6: Propositional calculus, Semantic Tableau, formal System 2 nd August,
Chapter 1 Propositional Logic
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
Dummett about realism and anti-realism
Conditional Statements
SEMANTICS VS PRAGMATICS
DISCRETE MATHEMATICS CHAPTER I.
Lecture 1 – Formal Logic.
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
Bool operators and, or, not
Conditional Statements
CS621: Artificial Intelligence
The Propositional Calculus
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Truth Tables – Logic (Continued)
Semantics In propositional logic, we associate atoms with propositions about the world. We specify the semantics of our logic, giving it a “meaning”. Such.
Saying the Same Thing.
Chapter 1 The Foundations: Logic and Proof, Sets, and Functions
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Logic Use mathematical deduction to derive new knowledge.
Back to “Serious” Topics…
Logics for Data and Knowledge Representation
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
Formal Methods in Software Engineering
CSNB234 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Formal Methods in software development
TRUTH TABLES.
Bottom Up: Soundness and Completeness
ece 720 intelligent web: ontology and beyond
CS344 : Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Introducing Natural Deduction
Starting out with formal logic
Truth tables.
Presentation transcript:

Lecture 2 The Language of S5

Propositional logic is concerned with the meaning of sentences of the form ‘It is not the case that ’, ‘ and ’, ‘ or ’ and ‘if  then ’, where  and  are sentences. Examples: ‘It is not the case that today is Thursday.’ ‘Today is Friday and grass is green.’ ‘Today is Thursday or today is Friday.’ ‘If today is Friday then yesterday was Thursday.’

x f(x) T F x y f(x, y) T F x y f(x, y) T F x y f(x, y) T F We take the meaning of a sentence to be a truth-value. And we take the meaning of the expressions ‘It is not the case that’, ‘and’, ‘or’ and ‘if … then …’ to be functions from truth-values to truth-values: ‘not’ ‘and’ ‘or’ ‘if’ x f(x) T F x y f(x, y) T F x y f(x, y) T F x y f(x, y) T F

The meaning of a complex sentence such as ‘Grass is green and snow is white’ is determined by the meanings of its constituents: ‘Grass is green’, ‘and’, and ‘snow is white’. How? The meaning of ‘Grass is green and snow is white’ is the meaning of ‘and’ (a function from truth-values to truth-values) applied to the meaning of ‘Grass is green’ (a truth-value) and the meaning of ‘snow is white’ (a truth-value). So ‘Grass is green and snow is white’ is true just in case ‘Grass is green’ is true and ‘snow is white’ is true.

Modal logic is concerned with the meaning of sentences of the form ‘It is necessary that ’, and ‘It is possible that ’, where  is a sentence. Examples: ‘It is necessary that 2 + 2 = 4.’ ‘It is possible that it will rain tomorrow.’ Also: ‘Necessarily, 2 + 2 = 4.’ ‘Possibly, it will rain tomorrow.’ ‘2 + 2 is necessarily 4.’ ‘It will possibly rain tomorrow.’ ‘2 + 2 must be 4.’ ‘It might rain tomorrow.’

It will no longer work to take the meaning of a sentence to be a truth-value, and the meanings of ‘It is necessary that’ and ‘It is possible that’ to be functions from truth-values to truth-values. Why not? Because the truth-values of ‘It is necessary that ’ and ‘It is possible that ’ depend on more than just the truth-value of : ‘It is necessary that 2 + 2 = 4.’ ‘It is necessary that grass is green.’

So what do we do? We take the meaning of a sentence to be not a truth-value, but a function from possible worlds to truth-values. Call such a function a proposition. So a sentence is not just true or false, it is true or false at a world, according to whether the proposition that it means is true or false at that world. If we single out one world and call it the actual world, then we can define a sentence to be true or false (simpliciter) according to whether it is true or false at the actual world.

What about the meaning of ‘It is necessary that’ and ‘It is possible that’? We take the meaning of each to be not a function from truth-values to truth-values, but a function from propositions to propositions. Which functions? The meaning of ‘It is necessary that’ is the function f such that if p is a proposition then f(p) is the proposition that is true at a world w just in case p is true at all possible worlds. The meaning of ‘It is possible that’ is the function f such that if p is a proposition then f(p) is the proposition that is true at a world w just in case p is true at some possible world.

The meaning of a complex sentence such as ‘It is necessary that grass is green’ is determined by the meanings of its constituents: ‘It is necessary that’ and ‘grass is green’. How? The meaning of ‘It is necessary that grass is green’ is the meaning of ‘It is necessary that’ (a function from propositions to propositions) applied to the meaning of ‘grass is green’ (a proposition). Which proposition do we get? The proposition that is true at a world w just in case ‘grass is green’ is true at all worlds.

In summary: ‘It is necessary that ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at all worlds. ‘It is possible that ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at some world. ‘It is necessary that ’ is true (simpliciter) just in case  is true at all worlds. ‘It is possible that ’ is true (simpliciter) just in case  is true at some world.

Since we are taking the meaning of a sentence to be a proposition, we have to take the meanings of ‘It is not the case that’, ‘and’, ‘or’, and ‘if … then …’ to be functions from propositions to propositions. Which functions? The meaning of ‘and’ is the function f such that if p and q are propositions then f(p, q) is the proposition that is true at a world w just in case p is true at w and q is true at w. This means that the sentence ‘ and ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at w and  is true at w.

In summary: ‘It is not the case that ’ is true at a world w just in case  is false at w. ‘ and ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at w and  is true at w. ‘ or ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at w or  is true at w. ‘If  then ’ is true at a world w just in case  is false at w or  is true at w.

We extend the formal language PC to the formal language S5. Additional symbols: ‘□’ (for ‘It is necessary that’) ‘’ (for ‘It is possible that’) Additional wffs: If  is a wff then so is ‘□’ and ‘’

We interpret the language by specifying a set of possible worlds, and assigning a proposition to each sentence letter (that is, a truth-value at each world). The meaning of every complex wff is then giving by the following rules: ‘It is not the case that ’ is true at a world w just in case  is false at w. ‘ and ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at w and  is true at w. ‘ or ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at w or  is true at w. ‘If  then ’ is true at a world w just in case  is false at w or  is true at w. ‘It is necessary that ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at every possible world. ‘It is possible that ’ is true at a world w just in case  is true at some possible world.

If  is a set of wffs (possibly empty) and  is wff, say that ‘╞ ’ is a correct semantic sequent just in case there is no interpretation on which every wff in  is true (simpliciter) but  is false (simpliciter). Examples of correct semantic sequents: A╞ A A╞ A A╞ A A╞ A A╞ A [A  B], A╞ B ╞ [A  A] ╞ [A  [A  B]] ╞ [A  A]

Examples of incorrect semantic sequents: A╞ A A╞ A [A & B]╞ [A & B] A, [A  B]╞ B

We also extend the deductive system of PC by adding new rules of deduction to S5: Def  From  deduce  (and vice-versa) From  deduce  (and vv) RN From [] deduce  ( not in the scope of an assumption in […]) RK From  and […] deduce […] ( not in the scope of an assumption) RT From  deduce  RB From  and […] deduce […] R4 From  and […] deduce […] R5 From  and […] deduce […]

If  is a set of wffs (possibly empty) and  is wff, say that ‘├ ’ is a correct syntactic sequent just in case  can be deduced from  using the rules of deduction of the system. Examples of correct syntactic sequents: A├ A A├ A A├ A A├ A A├ A [A  B], A├ B ├ [A  A] ├ [A  [A  B]] ├ [A  A]