Meta-logical problems: Knight, knaves, and Rips P.N. Johnson-Laird Princeton University Ruth M.J. Byrne University of Wales College of Cardiff Presented.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TRUTH TABLES The general truth tables for each of the connectives tell you the value of any possible statement for each of the connectives. Negation.
Advertisements

Introduction to Proofs
Logic & Critical Reasoning
Cross Cultural Research
CHAPTER 13 Inference Techniques. Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence n Knowledge must be processed (reasoned with) n Computer program accesses knowledge.
Justification-based TMSs (JTMS) JTMS utilizes 3 types of nodes, where each node is associated with an assertion: 1.Premises. Their justifications (provided.
Automated Reasoning Systems For first order Predicate Logic.
Methods of Proof Chapter 7, second half.. Proof methods Proof methods divide into (roughly) two kinds: Application of inference rules: Legitimate (sound)
For Friday No reading Homework: –Chapter 9, exercise 4 (This is VERY short – do it while you’re running your tests) Make sure you keep variables and constants.
Logic Use mathematical deduction to derive new knowledge.
The psychology of knights and knaves Lance J. Rips, University of Chicago, 1989.
Deduction In addition to being able to represent facts, or real- world statements, as formulas, we want to be able to manipulate facts, e.g., derive new.
Logic.
Proofs, Recursion and Analysis of Algorithms Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 2 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesProofs,
Logic Concepts Lecture Module 11.
Best-First Search: Agendas
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Culture and psychological knowledge: A Recap
Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals Ruth M.J. Byrne, MRC Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge (1987, 1988, 1989) Ruth M.J. Byrne, MRC Applied.
Formal Logic Proof Methods Direct Proof / Natural Deduction Conditional Proof (Implication Introduction) Reductio ad Absurdum Resolution Refutation.
CSE (c) S. Tanimoto, 2008 Propositional Logic
CPSC 322, Lecture 20Slide 1 Propositional Definite Clause Logic: Syntax, Semantics and Bottom-up Proofs Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 20 (Textbook.
Logical Agents Chapter 7. Why Do We Need Logic? Problem-solving agents were very inflexible: hard code every possible state. Search is almost always exponential.
PSYC512: Research Methods PSYC512: Research Methods Lecture 4 Brian P. Dyre University of Idaho.
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Alpha: Symbolization and Inference Bram van Heuveln Minds and Machines Lab RPI.
Developing Ideas for Research and Evaluating Theories of Behavior
EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 5 Analysis of arguments (continued) More example proofs Formalisation of arguments in natural language Proof by contradiction.
Discrete Mathematics and its Applications
Causality, Reasoning in Research, and Why Science is Hard
Notes for Chapter 12 Logic Programming The AI War Basic Concepts of Logic Programming Prolog Review questions.
Copyright © Curt Hill Using Propositional Logic Several applications.
MATH 224 – Discrete Mathematics
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. CHAPTER 4 ELEMENTARY NUMBER THEORY AND METHODS OF PROOF ELEMENTARY NUMBER THEORY AND METHODS OF PROOF.
1 Inference Rules and Proofs (Z); Program Specification and Verification Inference Rules and Proofs (Z); Program Specification and Verification.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
1 CHAPTER 13 Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems, Efraim Turban and Jay E. Aronson 6th ed, Copyright 2001, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
Formal Models in AGI Research Pei Wang Temple University Philadelphia, USA.
Advanced Topics in Propositional Logic Chapter 17 Language, Proof and Logic.
Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Developing and Evaluating Theories of Behavior.
PROCESS OF ELIMINATION INDUCTIVE REASONING. DISCLAIMER Logic is a very complex field of study. Our goal in this unit is just to starting thinking about.
Biological Science.
11/8/2015 Nature of Science. 11/8/2015 Nature of Science 1. What is science? 2. What is an observation? 3. What is a fact? 4. Define theory. 5. Define.
Hazırlayan DISCRETE COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURES Propositional Logic PROF. DR. YUSUF OYSAL.
Uncertainty Management in Rule-based Expert Systems
Copyright © Zeph Grunschlag, Induction Zeph Grunschlag.
Automated Reasoning Early AI explored how to automated several reasoning tasks – these were solved by what we might call weak problem solving methods as.
Logical Agents Chapter 7. Outline Knowledge-based agents Logic in general Propositional (Boolean) logic Equivalence, validity, satisfiability.
1 Logical Inference Algorithms CS 171/271 (Chapter 7, continued) Some text and images in these slides were drawn from Russel & Norvig’s published material.
CS6133 Software Specification and Verification
Scientific Debugging. Errors in Software Errors are unexpected behaviors or outputs in programs As long as software is developed by humans, it will contain.
Problem Reduction So far we have considered search strategies for OR graph. In OR graph, several arcs indicate a variety of ways in which the original.
Logic UNIT 1.
11 Artificial Intelligence CS 165A Thursday, October 25, 2007  Knowledge and reasoning (Ch 7) Propositional logic 1.
What is Reasoning  Logical reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from premises using rules of inference.  These inference rules are results.
CpSc 810: Machine Learning Analytical learning. 2 Copy Right Notice Most slides in this presentation are adopted from slides of text book and various.
Dr. Naveed Riaz Design and Analysis of Algorithms 1 1 Formal Methods in Software Engineering Lecture # 25.
Logical Agents Chapter 7. Outline Knowledge-based agents Propositional (Boolean) logic Equivalence, validity, satisfiability Inference rules and theorem.
Computational Learning Theory Part 1: Preliminaries 1.
Foundations of Discrete Mathematics Chapter 1 By Dr. Dalia M. Gil, Ph.D.
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
The Scientific Method. Scientifically Solving a Problem Observe Define a Problem Review the Literature Observe some More Develop a Theoretical Framework.
Chapter 2 Section 1 Conducting Research Obj: List and explain the steps scientists follow in conducting scientific research.
Logical Agents. Outline Knowledge-based agents Logic in general - models and entailment Propositional (Boolean) logic Equivalence, validity, satisfiability.
Research & Writing in CJ
Developing and Evaluating Theories of Behavior
Logic Use mathematical deduction to derive new knowledge.
The Method of Deduction
Computer Security: Art and Science, 2nd Edition
Chapter 7. Propositional and Predicate Logic
Presentation transcript:

Meta-logical problems: Knight, knaves, and Rips P.N. Johnson-Laird Princeton University Ruth M.J. Byrne University of Wales College of Cardiff Presented by Rob Janousek

Meta-logical problems: Knight, knaves, and Rips Overview: Summarize the puzzle & Rips’s theory Problems for the natural deduction approach Explore mental models reasoning Compare predictions & experiment data Concluding thoughts & questions

Knights & Knaves In the world of Knights & Knaves: Knights always tell the truth Knaves always tell falsehoods Example: Two inhabitants A and B A says: “I am a knave and B is a knave.” B says: “A is a knave.”

Knights & Knaves In the world of Knights & Knaves: Knights always tell the truth Knaves always tell falsehoods Example: Two inhabitants A and B A says: “I am a knave and B is a knave.” B says: “A is a knave.” Conclusion:A is a knave and B is a knight

A response to The Psychology of Knights and Knaves by Lance J. Rips - University of Chicago Rips proposes a theory that the cognitive process involved in solving the knight-knave brain teasers is accounted for under a natural deductive logic framework. Rules defining the properties and relationships between knights and knaves Example: Rule 3: NOT knave(x) entails knight(x)

A response to The Psychology of Knights and Knaves by Lance J. Rips - University of Chicago Rips proposes a theory that the cognitive process involved in solving the knight-knave brain teasers is accounted for under a natural deductive logic framework. Rules for manipulating formulae in propositional logic Example: Rule 8 (DeMorgan-2): NOT(p AND q) entails NOT p OR NOT q

A response to The Psychology of Knights and Knaves by Lance J. Rips - University of Chicago Rips proposes a theory that the cognitive process involved in solving the knight-knave brain teasers is accounted for under a natural deductive logic framework. Rules for commencing and progressing through examination of all logical contingencies & contradictions Example: Assume the first encountered assertor’s assertion as a premise, and iteratively proceed to follow-up on all consequences. Then assume the negation of this assertion as the premise and do likewise. Then repeat this procedure for each assertor.

Observations & Intuitions The formal PROLOG procedure outlined by Rips is an effective algorithm for solving many K&K problems, however: The analytic introspection provided in the study’s initial protocol evidence points to a less rigorous problem solving method.

Observations & Intuitions The formal PROLOG procedure outlined by Rips is an effective algorithm for solving many K&K problems, however: This algorithm only functions by reasoning forward on assumptions, even when solutions may more readily derived from backwards progression (using reducto ad absurdum).

Observations & Intuitions The formal PROLOG procedure outlined by Rips is an effective algorithm for solving many K&K problems, however: Many of the steps performed by the algorithm are redundant or test trivial cases. Considering irrelevant options is unduly burdensome on conceptual “bookkeeping” for humans.

Observations & Intuitions The formal PROLOG procedure outlined by Rips is an effective algorithm for solving many K&K problems, however: There is a peculiar linguistic issue that promotes confusion when a knave produces an AND statement (x AND y) (NOT x) OR (NOT y) by DeMorgan’s NOTx AND NOTy in the context of a liar

The Challenge for Mental Models Rips concludes by requesting an explicit account of knight-knave reasoning that is: Theoretically explicit (not ambiguous in its account) Empirically adequate (effectively explains the real world observations collected from experiment data) More than a mere notational reassignment of the same formal inference rules (not a mental models version of strict natural deduction)

Problems with Rips’s theory Rips overlooks the meta-logical nature of the problem domain: The truth theoretic analysis of statements is foregone by adopting propositional logic formulas and appropriate relations. Taken in isolation, Rips’s theory lacks the notion of validity as there is no truth assignment (and be shown to be complete through such).

Problems with Rips’s theory The knight-knave example is only one type of meta-logical puzzle: The formal natural deduction procedure used cannot accommodate the switch from knight- knave truth telling to logician-politician deduction applying Example: In the world of Logicians & Politicians: Logicians always make valid deductions Politicians never make valid deductions

Problems with Rips’s theory A says: “either B is telling the truth or else B is a politician” (but not both) B says: “A is lying” C deduces: that B is a politician Is C a logician? Rips’s theory lacks the framework needed to address this scenario, even though the role of C is captured procedurally.

Problems with Rips’s theory There is only a single procedure/algorithm supplied to solve the meta-logical problems: Human reasoning is far less systematic and varies with the particular configuration of the problem statement. While Rips’s procedure will yield the correct result, pragmatic considerations make it a poor model of human reasoning once the number of deduction steps grows large.

Problems with Rips’s theory The theory places too large a burden on human faculties: Too much is required on the part of working memory. Protocol evidence prior to Rips’s experiments shows difficulty in juggling propositional formulae without written aid for even simple examples.

Meta-logical Reasoning with Mental Models The mental models approach assumes the ability to make simple propositional declarations not based on formal inference rules, but rather on modeling and revising possible states of the the involved entities/tokens. Example: A or B (or both) not A Therefore, B

Meta-logical Reasoning with Mental Models Example: A or B (or both) not A Therefore, B First all possible states of the first premise are considered: [A, ~B], [~A, B], [A, B] Next the information in the second premise is incorporated, and inconsistencies are removed from consideration: [A, ~B], [~A, B], [A, B] Of the information under consideration in the single remaining model, the conclusion is extracted as not corresponding to any premise: Therefore B

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Full Chain A “notational variant” of Rips’s procedure. Mental models replace the formal inference rule notation. Assume that an assertor tells the truth, and follow up the consequences, and the consequences of the consequences, and so on. Then assume that an assertor tells a lie and proceed likewise. Then repreat both these processes for all premises (eliminating contradiction assignment)

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Full Chain Problems for human reasoning when traversing the branches of disjunctions. Limited capacity of working memory results in experiment participants needing to start over or guess about token status in mental models. While functional in basic cases, this mental models version of Rips’s framework suffers the same flaws once the problem complexity is increased.

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Simple Chain Assumes that the disjunctive consequences are too difficult to reliably formulate. Assume that the assertor in the first premise tells the truth and follow up the consequences until completed, or until it becomes necessary to follow up disjunctive consequences. Assume the first assertor is then lying and continue likewise (don’t examine consequences of other premises)

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Simple Chain Consistent with limits on working memory as one can continue a search for solutions without getting bogged down testing multiple conditions at each disjunction. This strategy does not guarantee a solution will be found, but functions well as a “worst case” default to work with until other heuristics strategies can be applied.

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Circular Strategy A heuristic type rule for dealing with self referential claims of the form: A asserts that A is false and B is true This also relates to an important observation that neither a knight nor a knave can claim (in isolation) that he is a knave.

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Circular Strategy If a premise is circular, follow up the immediate consequences of assuming that it is true, and then follow up the immediate consequences of assuming that it is false. A asserts that A is false and B is true Since this statement refutes itself, A cannot be true. However if A is false, then (A is false and B is true) is a false assertion. Since the first conjunct is satisfied, it must be the second that is false, and thus B must be false

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Hypothesize-and-Match Strategy More flexible than the Simple Chain and Circular Strategy as it provides a useful “out” when a contradiction arises. If the assumption that the first assertor A is telling the truth leads to a contradiction, try to match ~A with the content of the other assertions and proceed to follow up consequences under the ~A assumption.

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Hypothesize-and-Match Strategy Example:A asserts that A and B B asserts that not A Model assuming A:[A,B] Add second premise:[A,~A,B] (contradiction) Now match ~A:[~A,B] (consistent)

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Same-Assertion-and-Match Strategy Example: A asserts that not C B asserts that not C C asserts that A and not B Both A and B make the same claim, so are either both true or both false. Consequently, C cannot be satisfied and therefore must be false.

Strategies for Meta-logical Reasoning The Same-Assertion-and-Match Strategy If two assertions make the same (different) claims and a third assertor, C, assigns the two assertors to different (the same) types, then attempt to match ~C with the content of the other assertions and follow up the consequences… (Alternatively): A asserts that C B asserts that ~C C asserts that A and B

Predictions from Mental Models The simple strategies assume the capacity to process premises is limited. Negated conjunctions (by DeMorgan’s Law) force the consideration of a disjunctive model set. Positive matches are easier to deal with than negative mismatches (loosing track of multiple negations). Given these strategies and limitations, several predictions follow:

Predictions from Mental Models Problems that can be solved using the simple strategies are easier than those requiring the Full Chain approach. Rips’s first experiment data supports this prediction with 28% correct conclusions for the simple strategy accessible problems and only 14% correct conclusions in problems requiring the Full Chain.

Predictions from Mental Models The difficultly of the problem will be related to the number of clauses that need to be examined to solve it. The number of links that need to be traversed in the application of the simple strategies relates to the number of steps needed by Rips’s program (corresponding to results of the second experiment). However the simple strategies vary in the number of links they introduce (i.e. the circular strategy is less costly than hypothesize-and-match) The parsing order of the premises can influence which strategies are available and thus the number of links traversed.

Predictions from Mental Models A hypothesis of an assertion being true is easier to process than one which is false assuming all else in the problem is equal. The process of negating mental models requires some cognitive resources. Example: A says: I am a knave or B is a knight[A, B] B says: I am a knight[B] Versus: A says: I am a knave or B is a knave[A,~B] B says: I am a knight[~B]

Deducing Conclusions The use of mental models and the four simple strategies account for more of Rips’s results than the natural deductive strategy. Some problems in the experiments were not able to be solved by any strategy given aside from the Full Chain. However, the percent of correct responses on these “hard” problems, while low, was still statistically above that of mere chance (guessing).

Deducing Conclusions Is natural deduction necessitated despite resource limitations in memory? Other options may include an expanded Simple Chain: Only continue to follow up on consequences of of disjunctive consequences to a certain threshold level. Continue the Simple Chain approach beyond the truth values of the first assessor.