COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Inference in first-order logic
Advertisements

First-Order Logic.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
ITCS 3153 Artificial Intelligence Lecture 15 First-Order Logic Chapter 9 Lecture 15 First-Order Logic Chapter 9.
Inference in first-order logic Chapter 9. Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward.
CptS 440 / 540 Artificial Intelligence Knowledge Representation.
Some Thoughts to Consider 7 What is the difference between Knowledge Engineering and Programming? What is the difference between Knowledge Engineering.
RESOLUTION: A COMPLETE INFERENCE PROCEDURE. I Then we certainly want to be able to conclude S(A); S(A) is true if S(A) or R(A) is true, and one of those.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
Inference in FOL All rules of inference for propositional logic apply to first-order logic We just need to reduce FOL sentences to PL sentences by instantiating.
1 FOL CS 331/531 Dr M M Awais Unification “It is an algorithm for determining the substitutions needed to make two predicate calculus expressions match”
1 FOL Resolution based Inferencing Resolution based rules studied earlier can lead to inferences, rules such as modus ponen, unit resolution etc… Other.
Inference in FOL Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 9 Spring 2004.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
Inference in FOL Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 9 Fall 2004.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
Inference in FOL Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 9 Spring 2005.
Inference in First-Order Logic Inference Rules with Quantifiers The three new inference rules are as follows: Universal Elimination: For any sentence ,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
FIRST ORDER LOGIC Levent Tolga EREN.
Predicates and Quantifiers
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
For Friday Exam 1. For Monday No reading Take home portion of exam due.
1 CS 2710, ISSP 2160 Chapter 9 Inference in First-Order Logic.
Inference in first-order logic I CIS 391 – Introduction to Artificial Intelligence AIMA Chapter (through p. 278) Chapter 9.5 (through p. 300)
Inference in First-Order logic Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.
For Wednesday Read chapter 10 Prolog Handout 4. Exam 1 Monday Take home due at the exam.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
Chapter 1, Part II: Predicate Logic With Question/Answer Animations.
1 Introduction to Computational Linguistics Eleni Miltsakaki AUTH Spring 2006-Lecture 8.
Word Problem Consider the following problem: To register, you will need either a yellow card or a note from the Dean. To obtain a note from the Dean you.
1 Inference in First-Order Logic CS 271: Fall 2009.
An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence – CE Chapter 9 - Inference in first-order logic Ramin Halavati In which we define.
For Wednesday Read chapter 9, sections 1-3 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 8 and 9.
For Friday Read chapter 8 Homework: –Chapter 7, exercises 2 and 10 Program 1, Milestone 2 due.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University.
For Wednesday Finish reading chapter 10 – can skip chapter 8 No written homework.
Inference in First Order Logic. Outline Reducing first order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward and backward.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of the University.
Lecture 041 Predicate Calculus Learning outcomes Students are able to: 1. Evaluate predicate 2. Translate predicate into human language and vice versa.
Inference in First-Order Logic Chapter 9. Outline Reducing first-order inference to propositional inference Unification Generalized Modus Ponens Forward.
1 Chaining in First Order Logic CS 171/271 (Chapter 9, continued) Some text and images in these slides were drawn from Russel & Norvig’s published material.
Knowledge Representation using First-Order Logic
Presented By S.Yamuna AP/CSE
Inference in first-order logic
Inference in First-Order Logic
Chapter 9 Inference in First-Order Logic
For Monday Read Prolog handout 4 Homework:
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning
Inference in First-Order Logic
Inference in first-order logic part 1
Example of Knowledge Base
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence: Inference in first-order logic
For Monday Read chapter 10, sections 1-3 Prolog handout 4
Inference in first-order logic part 1
Predicates and Quantifiers
Predicate Logic: Syntax.
Predicate Logic.
Introduction to Computational Linguistics
First-Order Logic Prof. Dr. Widodo Budiharto 2018
Presentation transcript:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Monash University pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice.

Predicate Logic CSE2303 Formal Methods I Lecture 19

Overview Terms Sentences Quantifiers Knowledge Representation

Example All men are mortal Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. Objects: Socrates, Set of people. Properties: Man, Mortal

Example There is a girl who is loved by every boy. Therefore every boy loves some girl. Objects: A set of people. Properties: Boy, Girl. Relation: Loves

Objects Constant symbols –Names which refer to exactly one object. –socrates, wumpus, 1, 2, … Function symbols –relates some objects to exactly one object. –motherOf, kingOf, plus, times, … –Complex name. Individual variables –a variable which can refer to any object. –X, Y, …

Term A term is a logical expression which refers to an object. E.g. –Constant symbols. –Individual variables. –Functions of constant symbols. –Functions of other terms.

Predicates Predicate symbols –man, mortal, boy, girl, loves, … –Properties (1 place) –Relations (2 or more places) Equality symbol (=) –Used to state that two objects are the same. rebecca = rebecca fatherOf(john) = henry X = kingOf(sweden)

Sentences Atomic sentences –A predicate symbol followed by a list of terms in brackets. –E.g. taller(motherOf(claire), mary) Complex sentences –Atomic sentences joined together by logical connectives –E.g. man(socrates)  mortal(socrates)

Universal Quantification Used to make a statement about every object.  “for all” All dogs are happy  X (dog(X)  happy(X)) No dog is happy All dogs are unhappy  X (dog(X)  ¬happy(X))

Existential Quantification Used to make a statement about some object.  “there exists” Some dogs are happy  X (dog(X)  happy(X)) Some dogs are not happy  X (dog(X)  ¬happy(X))

Universe of Discourse The set of objects that are being referred to. Often it is unstated or assumed. Can affect the truth of a statement. Consider the predicate greaterThanZero.  X greaterThanZero(X)

Socrates Example All men are mortal  X (man(X)  mortal(X)) Socrates is a man. man(socrates) Socrates is mortal. mortal(socrates)

Colonel West Example It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to a hostile nation. The country Nono, an enemy of America, has some missiles, and all its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West, who is an American. Constants: –nono, america, west Predicates: –criminal, american, weapon, hostile, nation, enemy, missile, owns, sells

Crime It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to a hostile nation. If any american X sells any weapon Y to any hostile nation Z, then that american X is a criminal.  X,Y,Z (american(X)  weapon(Y)  nation(Z)  hostile(Z)  sells(X, Z, Y)  criminal(X))

Nono’s missiles Nono has some missiles  X (missile(X)  owns(nono, X)) All of Nono’s missiles were sold to it by West. If X is a missile owned by Nono then West sold X to Nono.  X ((missile(X)  owns(nono, X))  sells(west, nono, X))

The other facts An enemy of America is hostile.  X (enemy(X, america)  hostile(X)) West is an American. american(west) Nono is an enemy of America. nation(nono)  nation(america)  enemy(nono, america)

Love Example There is a girl who is loved by every boy. There is a girl X and if Y is a boy then Y loves her.  X (girl(X)   Y(boy(Y)  loves(Y,X))) Every boy loves some girl. For every boy Y there exists a girl X that he loves.  Y(boy(Y)   X (girl(X)  loves(Y,X)))

Curiosity Example Jack owns a dog Every dog owner is an animal lover. No animal lover kills an animal. Either Jack or Curiosity killed the cat. The cat’s name is Tuna. Constants: jack, curiosity, tuna. Predicates: owns, dog, animalLover, kills, animal.

Dog owners Jack owns a dog Some dog is owed by Jack.  X (dog(X)  owns(jack, X)) Every dog owner is an animal lover.  X ((  Y (dog(Y)  owns(X,Y)))  animalLover(X))

Animal Lovers No animal lover kills an animal. An animal lover does not kill an animal. For any animal lover X and any animal Y, then Y is not killed by X.  X, Y ((animalLover(X)  animal(Y))  ¬kills(X,Y))

Cat Knowledge The cat’s name is Tuna cat(tuna) Either Jack or Curiosity killed the cat. kills(jack, tuna)  kills(curiosity, tuna) All cats are animals.  X cat(X)  animal(X)

Revision Know the definitions of the following: –Terms –Sentences –Quantifiers Know how to convert sentences in English to sentences in Predicate Logic.