First Order Logic (chapter 2 of the book) Lecture 3: Sep 14.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Proofs
Advertisements

Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs 1.1 Propositional Logic 1.2 Propositional Equivalences 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers 1.4 Nested Quantifiers.
Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof
– Alfred North Whitehead,
22C:19 Discrete Structures Logic and Proof Spring 2014 Sukumar Ghosh.
CS1001 Lecture 22. Overview Mechanizing Reasoning Mechanizing Reasoning G ö del ’ s Incompleteness Theorem G ö del ’ s Incompleteness Theorem.
Logic and Proof. Argument An argument is a sequence of statements. All statements but the first one are called assumptions or hypothesis. The final statement.
CSE115/ENGR160 Discrete Mathematics 02/07/12
So far we have learned about:
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 6 Predicate Logic Autumn 2011 CSE 3111.
Proofs, Recursion and Analysis of Algorithms Mathematical Structures for Computer Science Chapter 2.1 Copyright © 2006 W.H. Freeman & Co.MSCS SlidesProofs,
Methods of Proof Lecture 4: Sep 16 (chapter 3 of the book)
Fall 2002CMSC Discrete Structures1 Let’s proceed to… Mathematical Reasoning.
First Order Logic. This Lecture Last time we talked about propositional logic, a logic on simple statements. This time we will talk about first order.
CS 2210 (22C:019) Discrete Structures Logic and Proof Spring 2015 Sukumar Ghosh.
Methods of Proof & Proof Strategies
A Brief Summary for Exam 1 Subject Topics Propositional Logic (sections 1.1, 1.2) –Propositions Statement, Truth value, Proposition, Propositional symbol,
Introduction to Proofs
1 Georgia Tech, IIC, GVU, 2006 MAGIC Lab Rossignac Lecture 03: PROOFS Section 1.5 Jarek Rossignac CS1050: Understanding.
MATH 224 – Discrete Mathematics
Methods of Proof. This Lecture Now we have learnt the basics in logic. We are going to apply the logical rules in proving mathematical theorems. Direct.
CSE 311: Foundations of Computing Fall 2013 Lecture 8: More Proofs.
Week 3 - Monday.  What did we talk about last time?  Predicate logic  Multiple quantifiers  Negating multiple quantifiers  Arguments with quantified.
Section 1.8. Section Summary Proof by Cases Existence Proofs Constructive Nonconstructive Disproof by Counterexample Nonexistence Proofs Uniqueness Proofs.
CS 173, Lecture B August 27, 2015 Tandy Warnow. Proofs You want to prove that some statement A is true. You can try to prove it directly, or you can prove.
Proofs1 Elementary Discrete Mathematics Jim Skon.
1 Sections 1.5 & 3.1 Methods of Proof / Proof Strategy.
1 Math/CSE 1019C: Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science Fall 2011 Suprakash Datta Office: CSEB 3043 Phone: ext
Methods of Proof Lecture 3: Sep 9. This Lecture Now we have learnt the basics in logic. We are going to apply the logical rules in proving mathematical.
Chapter 1, Part II: Predicate Logic With Question/Answer Animations.
First Order Logic Lecture 2: Sep 9. This Lecture Last time we talked about propositional logic, a logic on simple statements. This time we will talk about.
Course Overview and Road Map Computability and Logic.
Hazırlayan DISCRETE COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURES Propositional Logic PROF. DR. YUSUF OYSAL.
Godel’s proof Danny Brown. Outline of godel’s proof 1.Create a statement that says of itself that it is not provable 2.Show that this statement is provable.
Chapter 2 The Logic of Quantified Statements. Section 2.1 Intro to Predicates & Quantified Statements.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements. Predicate Calculus Instructor: Hayk Melikya 2.3.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Proofs in Predicate Logic , , ~, ,  Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section: The theorems.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Predicate Logic Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section: To introduce predicate logic (or.
Lecture 7 – Jan 28, Chapter 2 The Logic of Quantified Statements.
CS 285- Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4. Section 1.3 Predicate logic Predicate logic is an extension of propositional logic that permits concisely reasoning.
First Order Logic Lecture 3: Sep 13 (chapter 2 of the book)
22C:19 Discrete Structures Logic and Proof Fall 2014 Sukumar Ghosh.
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4 CSci 2011.
CS104:Discrete Structures Chapter 2: Proof Techniques.
Week 3 - Monday.  What did we talk about last time?  Predicate logic  Multiple quantifiers  Negating multiple quantifiers  Arguments with quantified.
Week 4 - Friday.  What did we talk about last time?  Floor and ceiling  Proof by contradiction.
Section 1.5 and 1.6 Predicates and Quantifiers. Vocabulary Predicate Domain Universal Quantifier Existential Quantifier Counterexample Free variable Bound.
1 Chapter 2.1 Chapter 2.2 Chapter 2.3 Chapter 2.4 All images are copyrighted to their respective copyright holders and reproduced here for academic purposes.
Section 1.7. Definitions A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true using: definitions other theorems axioms (statements which are given as.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 8 Proofs Autumn 2012 CSE
Section 1.8. Proof by Cases Example: Let b = max{a, b} = a if a ≥ b, otherwise b = max{a, b} = b. Show that for all real numbers a, b, c
Methods of Proof Lecture 4: Sep 20 (chapter 3 of the book, except 3.5 and 3.8)
Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs With Question/Answer Animations Copyright © McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without.
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
Foundations of Computing I CSE 311 Fall Announcements Homework #2 due today – Solutions available (paper format) in front – HW #3 will be posted.
Chapter 1 Logic and proofs
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
CS 2210:0001 Discrete Structures Logic and Proof
Chapter 4 (Part 1): Induction & Recursion
Argument An argument is a sequence of statements.
Chapter 3 The Logic of Quantified Statements
Predicate Calculus Validity
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
CS 220: Discrete Structures and their Applications
First Order Logic Rosen Lecture 3: Sept 11, 12.
MA/CSSE 474 More Math Review Theory of Computation
Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4 Logic of Quantified Statements
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Presentation transcript:

First Order Logic (chapter 2 of the book) Lecture 3: Sep 14

c b a Limitation of Propositional Logic Propositional logic – logic of simple statements How to formulate Pythagoreans’ theorem using propositional logic? c b a How to formulate the statement that there are infinitely many primes?

Predicates Predicates are propositions with variables The domain of a variable is the set of all values that may be substituted in place of the variable. Example: P (x,y) ::= x + 2 = y x = 1 and y = 3: P(1,3) is true x = 1 and y = 4: P(1,4) is false P(1,4) is true

Set R Set of all real numbers Z Set of all integers Q Set of all rational numbers means that x is an element of A means that x is not an element of A Sets can be defined directly: e.g. {1,2,4,8,16,32,…}, {CSC1130,CSC2110,…}

Truth Set Sets can be defined by a predicate Given a predicate P(x) and x has domain D, the truth set of P(x) is the set of all elements of D that make P(x) true. e.g. Let P(x) be “n is the square of a number”, and the domain D of x is set of positive integers. e.g. Let P(x) be “n is a prime number”, and the domain D of x is set of positive integers.

c b a The Universal Quantifier x For ALL x  x Z  y Z, x + y = y + x. c b a

The Existential Quantifier y There EXISTS some y e.g. The truth of a predicate depends on the domain. Domain Truth value integers  T positive integers + T negative integers - F negative reals - T

Translating Mathematical Theorem Fermat (1637): If an integer n is greater than 2, then the equation an + bn = cn has no solutions in non-zero integers a, b, and c. Andrew Wiles (1994) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_last_theorem

Translating Mathematical Theorem Goldbach’s conjecture: Every even number is the sum of two prime numbers. Suppose we have a predicate prime(x) to determine if x is a prime number. How to write prime(p)?

Negations of Quantified Statements Everyone likes football. What is the negation of this statement? Not everyone likes football = There exists someone who doesn’t like football. (generalized) DeMorgan’s Law Say the domain has only three values.

Negations of Quantified Statements There is a plant that can fly. What is the negation of this statement? Not exists a plant that can fly = every plant cannot fly. (generalized) DeMorgan’s Law Say the domain has only three values.

Order of Quantifiers There is an anti-virus program killing every computer virus. How to interpret this sentence? For every computer virus, there is an anti-virus program that kills it. For every attack, I have a defense: against MYDOOM, use Defender against ILOVEYOU, use Norton against BABLAS, use Zonealarm …  is expensive!

Order of quantifiers is very important! There is an anti-virus program killing every computer virus. How to interpret this sentence? There is one single anti-virus program that kills all computer viruses. I have one defense good against every attack. Example: P is CSE-antivirus, protects against ALL viruses That’s much better! Order of quantifiers is very important!

More Negations There is an anti-virus program killing every computer virus. What is the negation of this sentence? For every program, there is some virus that it can not kill.

Exercises There is a smallest positive integer. There is no smallest positive real number. There are infinitely many prime numbers.

Exercises There is a smallest positive integer. There is no smallest positive real number. There are infinitely many prime numbers.

Predicate Calculus Validity Propositional validity True no matter what the truth values of A and B are Predicate calculus validity z [Q(z)  P(z)] → [x.Q(x)  y.P(y)] True no matter what the Domain is, or the predicates are. That is, logically correct, independent of the specific content.

Arguments with Quantified Statements Universal instantiation: Universal modus ponens: Universal modus tollens:

Universal Generalization valid rule providing c is independent of A e.g. given any number c, 2c is an even number => for all x, 2x is an even number.

z [Q(z)  P(z)] → [x.Q(x)  y.P(y)] Not Valid z [Q(z)  P(z)] → [x.Q(x)  y.P(y)] Proof: Give countermodel, where z [Q(z)  P(z)] is true, but x.Q(x)  y.P(y) is false. In this example, let domain be integers, Q(z) be true if z is an even number, i.e. Q(z)=even(z) P(z) be true if z is an odd number, i.e. P(z)=odd(z) Find a domain, and a predicate. Then z [Q(z)  P(z)] is true, because every number is either even or odd. But x.Q(x) is not true, since not every number is an even number. Similarly y.P(y) is not true, and so x.Q(x)  y.P(y) is not true.

z D [Q(z)  P(z)] → [x D Q(x)  y D P(y)] Validity z D [Q(z)  P(z)] → [x D Q(x)  y D P(y)] Proof: Assume z [Q(z)P(z)]. So Q(z)P(z) holds for all z in the domain D. Now let c be some element in the domain D. So Q(c)P(c) holds (by instantiation), and therefore Q(c) by itself holds. But c could have been any element of the domain D. So we conclude x.Q(x). (by generalization) We conclude y.P(y) similarly (by generalization). Therefore, x.Q(x)  y.P(y) QED.

Mathematical Proof We prove mathematical statement by using logic. not valid To prove something is true, we need to assume some axioms! This is invented by Euclid in 300 BC, who begins with 5 assumptions about geometry, and derive many theorems as logical consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry (see page 18 of the notes for the ZFC axioms for set theory)

Ideal Mathematical World What do we expect from a logic system? What we prove is true. (soundness) What is true can be proven. (completeness) Hilbert’s program To resolve foundational crisis of mathematics (e.g. paradoxes) Find a finite, complete set of axioms, and provide a proof that these axioms were consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert’s_program

Power of Logic Good news: Gödel's Completeness Theorem Only need to know a few axioms & rules, to prove all validities. That is, starting from a few propositional & simple predicate validities, every valid assertions can be proved using just universal generalization and modus ponens repeatedly! modus ponens

Limits of Logic Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem for Arithmetic For any “reasonable” theory that proves basic arithemetic truth, an arithmetic statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. (very very brief) proof idea: Any theory “expressive” enough can express the sentence “This sentence is not provable.” If this is provable, then the theory is inconsistent. So it is not provable.

Limits of Logic Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem for Arithmetic For any “reasonable” theory that proves basic arithemetic truth, it cannot prove its consistency. No hope to find a complete and consistent set of axioms?! An excellent project topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems