2004/3/21 A spider kills another spider - generic-if and quantification - Ikumi Imani & Itaru Takarajima Nagoya Gakuin University {imani,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Semantic Model for Vague Quantifiers Combining Fuzzy Theory and Supervaluation Theory Ka Fat CHOW The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The title of.
Advertisements

Rules of Inference Rosen 1.5.
Completeness and Expressiveness
Referring Expressions: Definition Referring expressions are words or phrases, the semantic interpretation of which is a discourse entity (also called referent)
Word List A.
Sight Word Phrases Group 1.
Deduction and Induction Elementary deduction, my dear Watson…
Propositional Predicate
The Logic of Quantified Statements
1 A formula in predicate logic An atom is a formula. If F is a formula then (~F) is a formula. If F and G are Formulae then (F /\ G), (F \/ G), (F → G),
First-Order Logic (and beyond)
Inference and Reasoning. Basic Idea Given a set of statements, does a new statement logically follow from this. For example If an animal has wings and.
Fluency Phrases. at the store his dog to my house.
5.1 day 2 Simulations! .
Chapter 1: The Foundations: Logic and Proofs 1.1 Propositional Logic 1.2 Propositional Equivalences 1.3 Predicates and Quantifiers 1.4 Nested Quantifiers.
Unit 6 Predicates, Referring Expressions, and Universe of Discourse Part 1: Practices 1-7.
Pronouns Brenham Writing Room Created by D. Herring.
CAS LX 502 8a. Formal semantics Truth and meaning The basis of formal semantics: knowing the meaning of a sentence is knowing under what conditions.
ISBN Chapter 3 Describing Syntax and Semantics.
RMIT University; Taylor's College This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done.
Introduction to Semantics To be able to reason about the meanings of utterances, we need to have ways of representing the meanings of utterances. A formal.
CAS LX 502 Semantics 1b. The Truth Ch. 1.
Logic. what is an argument? People argue all the time ― that is, they have arguments.  It is not often, however, that in the course of having an argument.
Describing Syntax and Semantics
Ming-Feng Yeh General Fuzzy Systems A fuzzy system is a static nonlinear mapping between its inputs and outputs (i.e., it is not a dynamic system).
EE1J2 - Slide 1 EE1J2 – Discrete Maths Lecture 6 Limitations of propositional logic Introduction to predicate logic Symbols, terms and formulae, Parse.
Logical and Rule-Based Reasoning Part I. Logical Models and Reasoning Big Question: Do people think logically?
Predicates and Quantifiers
Section 1.3: Predicates and Quantifiers
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC FALL 2009 Quiz Game. ConceptsTrue/FalseTranslations Informal Proofs Formal Proofs
Created by Verna C. Rentsch and Joyce Cooling Nelson School
Week 3 - Monday.  What did we talk about last time?  Predicate logic  Multiple quantifiers  Negating multiple quantifiers  Arguments with quantified.
Pink Dolch Book Sight Phrases
Declarative vs Procedural Programming  Procedural programming requires that – the programmer tell the computer what to do. That is, how to get the output.
CMPF144 FUNDAMENTALS OF COMPUTING THEORY Module 5: Classical Logic.
Slide 1 Propositional Definite Clause Logic: Syntax, Semantics and Bottom-up Proofs Jim Little UBC CS 322 – CSP October 20, 2014.
Computational Semantics Day 5: Inference Aljoscha.
Unit 8 Pronouns.
Albert Gatt LIN3021 Formal Semantics Lecture 4. In this lecture Compositionality in Natural Langauge revisited: The role of types The typed lambda calculus.
Lógica difusa  Bayesian updating and certainty theory are techniques for handling the uncertainty that arises, or is assumed to arise, from statistical.
Key Concepts Representation Inference Semantics Discourse Pragmatics Computation.
Programming Languages and Design Lecture 3 Semantic Specifications of Programming Languages Instructor: Li Ma Department of Computer Science Texas Southern.
CSE Winter 2008 Introduction to Program Verification January 31 proofs through simplification.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Chapter 2: The Logic of Quantified Statements. Predicate Calculus Instructor: Hayk Melikya 2.3.
2.1 Sets 2.2 Set Operations –Set Operations –Venn Diagrams –Set Identities –Union and Intersection of Indexed Collections 2.3 Functions 2.4 Sequences and.
Chapter 2 Logic 2.1 Statements 2.2 The Negation of a Statement 2.3 The Disjunction and Conjunction of Statements 2.4 The Implication 2.5 More on Implications.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Predicate Logic Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section: To introduce predicate logic (or.
Discrete Mathematics CS 2610 August 22, Agenda Last class Propositional logic Logical equivalences This week Predicate logic & rules of inference.
Lecture 2 (Chapter 2) Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics.
STA Lecture 221 !! DRAFT !! STA 291 Lecture 22 Chapter 11 Testing Hypothesis – Concepts of Hypothesis Testing.
Lecture 1.2: Equivalences, and Predicate Logic CS 250, Discrete Structures, Fall 2015 Nitesh Saxena Adopted from previous lectures by Cinda Heeren, Zeph.
1 Section 8.3 Higher-Order Logic A logic is higher-order if it allows predicate names or function names to be quantified or to be arguments of a predicate.
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.
Weekly Sight Words List 1. the I to a is my.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Lecture 2 Propositional Calculus.
Lecture 10 (de re/de dicto) Ling 442. Exercises Translate the following into the logical language w/ restricted quantifiers. 1.Every dog that has a bone.
PREDICATES AND QUANTIFIERS COSC-1321 Discrete Structures 1.
Mathematics for Comter I Lecture 3: Logic (2) Propositional Equivalences Predicates and Quantifiers.
Week 1 Course: Paragraph Writing Instructor: Tsuei-Fen Chen Term:
Section 1.7. Section Summary Mathematical Proofs Forms of Theorems Direct Proofs Indirect Proofs Proof of the Contrapositive Proof by Contradiction.
Pronouns Chapter 8. Pronouns - Basics A pronoun is used in place of a noun. The noun it refers to is called an antecedent. I read a book. It was good.
Unit 7 Storytelling Lesson 25 The tailor enjoyed the trip so much that he soon fell asleep.
tautology checking continued
Lecture 5 (Modality) Ling 442.
Do Now If fours cards are drawn from a deck without replacement, find the probability of getting these results: All kings All diamonds All sevens.
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Discrete Mathematics CMP-200 Propositional Equivalences, Predicates & Quantifiers, Negating Quantified Statements Abdul Hameed
CS201: Data Structures and Discrete Mathematics I
Logical and Rule-Based Reasoning Part I
Truth Tables for Conditional and Biconditional Statements
Presentation transcript:

2004/3/21 A spider kills another spider - generic-if and quantification - Ikumi Imani & Itaru Takarajima Nagoya Gakuin University {imani,

2004/3/22 (1) A spider kills another spider. (universal/generic) n × (n - 1) (combinatory possibility) V((1)) = 1 if you find a spider which survived all killings.

2004/3/23 1. Dynamic Semantics 2. E-type analysis (with choice functions) 3. Our approach Contents

2004/3/24 Dynamic Semantics 1. DRT 2. File Change Semantics 3. Dynamic Predicate Logic (4. Model-theoretic semantics)

2004/3/25 DPL A formula denotes a set of 〈 f, g 〉, where f is an input and g an output. (1) f [ ∃ xφ] g ⇔ ∃ h: f and h differ at most in the value they assign to x and h [φ] g and h [φ] g f [ ∃ ’x] g ⇔ f and g differ at most in the value they assign to x (1’) f [ ∃ ’x] g ⇔ f and g differ at most in the value they assign to x (2) f [ ∀ xφ] g ⇔ f = g & ∀ k: f [ ∃ ’x] k → ∃ j: k [φ] j

2004/3/26 (1) A spider kills another spider. V((1)) = { 〈 f, g 〉 | f = g & ∀ k: f [ ∃ ’x s ] k → ∃ j: 〈 k, j 〉 ∈ V(kill(x s, y s )) } Truth: φis true with respect to f in M iff ∃ g: 〈 f, g 〉 ∈ [φ] M  But what (1) says is just that spiders have the habit of killing other spiders.

2004/3/27 (2) John bought a convertible. The car-dealer will deliver it to his house next week. Situation: John went to a car-dealer’s office. He looked at a catalogue of cars. He liked a convertible. He signed the check. They promised him to deliver it to his house next week. (Next day, he had a stroke. He died.)  Which car in the domain D is supposed to be purchased by John? f [ ∃ xφ] g ⇔ ∃ h: f and h differ at most in the value they assign to x and h [φ] g

2004/3/28 E-type analysis with choice functions a. F(t) → F(εxFx) a. F(t) → F(εxFx) (introduction rule for epsilon terms) b. ∃ xFx  F(εxFx) c. ∃ x ¬ Fx  ¬ F(εx ¬ Fx) d. ¬∃ x ¬ Fx  ¬¬ F(εx ¬ Fx) e. ∀ xFx  F(εx ¬ Fx) [εxFx] M,g = Φ([F] M,g ), [εxFx] M,g = Φ([F] M,g ), where Φ is a choice function that is determined by the model M.

2004/3/29 A Choice function Φ a. Φ([F] M,g ) ∈ [F] M,g if [F] M,g ≠  b. Φ([F] M,g ) ∈ D if [F] M,g =  Uniqueness problem (1) A wine glass broke last night. It had been very expensive. (2) Just one wine glass broke last night.

2004/3/210 Two kinds of choice functions  Once Φ chooses an element from D, it keeps to refer to the element. (1) A man is walking. He whistles. …. A man comes. He does not whistle. a. an F: [  k xFx] = Φ k [F] with k new b. the F:[ε c xFx] = Φ c [F] with c contextually determined b. the F: [ε c xFx] = Φ c [F] with c contextually determined (J.Peregrin and K. von Heusinger 1997)

2004/3/211 Salience Definite NPs refer to their referents according to the given salience ranking of the discourse. Indefinite NPs, on the other hand, do not refer to any salient object but to an arbitrary chosen object. (J.Peregrin and K. von Heusinger 1997) (J.Peregrin and K. von Heusinger 1997)

2004/3/212 (1) Why is a donkey walking in my garden? Situation: Two men were looking at the garden. They noticed that a donkey was walking in the garden. One of them shouted... Situation: Two men were looking at the garden. They noticed that a donkey was walking in the garden. One of them shouted... (2) Put your jacket on the desk. Situation: A man came in. He was soaked. The speaker did not get the room wet. She ordered him to put his jacket on the desk. He looked around, wondering where the desk was.

2004/3/213 Donald Duck Problem (1) If we invite some philosopher, Max will be offended. (P. Dekker 2001) Problem: The speaker does not know WHO is a philosopher, but there is some (specific) individual x, and if x is some philosopher which we invite, Max will be offended. Now, to make this statement true, it suffices to choose Donald for x. Since Donald is not a philosopher, the statement is trivially true. (The use of choice functions can handle this.) Situation: Suppose they are simply not going to invite Jacques Derrida. Then, when a choice function picks up Derrida, (1) is trivially true. In this way, (1) becomes equivalent to (2). (2) If we invite all philosophers, Max will be offended. (assuming there to be at least one philosopher)

2004/3/214 Model a. The domain of individuals, D b. An assignment function, I c. semantic definitions of terms I(dog) = a set of dogs

2004/3/215 Model-theoretic Semantics d A dog is running. Model = 〈 D, I 〉 I(dog) = {x | dog(x)} I(run) = {y | run(x)} g(x) = d d ∈ I(dog) ∩ I(run)

2004/3/216 What a machine does not do (1) I think a donkey is walking in my garden. Am I wrong? ‘A donkey is walking in my garden’ is true iff for at least one d ∈ D, V M,g[x/d] [walk(x) & donkey(x)] is true…

2004/3/217 What a machine does (verification by matching) A dog is running. I(dog) = {x | dog(x)} I(run) = {y | run(x)} g(x) = d verification by matching a j : dog, run

2004/3/218 What a machine does (storage) A dog is running. I(dog) = {x | dog(x)} I(run) = {y | run(x)} g(x) = d a j : dog, run

2004/3/219 Verification by matching vs. Storage (1)??Look! A man is a fireman. (matching) (2) If a man is a fireman, he is brave. (storing) (3) Look! A red car is running on the beach. (matching) (4) ?Look! A running car hit the tree. (matching) (5) If a running car hits a tree, it gets damaged. (storing)

2004/3/220 A: A man jumped from the bridge last night. (storing) B: He did not jump, but was pushed. A: I think a woman over there is pretty. (matching) B: She is not a woman. She is he. A: #I think a farmer who has a donkey is a woman. (storing: contradiction)

2004/3/221 Generic (storing) vs. actual (matching) (1) Most donkeys have a tail. They use it to swap flies. (2) ?Most donkeys have a tail (luckily enough). They are using it to swap flies. (3) *Most donkeys have a tail. It is long.

2004/3/222 verification by matching storing (recording) What state should a machine have?

2004/3/223 Object-setting (1) A man is running. (2) Every man is running. (3) Most men are running. (4) The man is running. (5) a j : man, run index j : every, generic, most, speaker’s referent, singular, plural …

2004/3/224 Example (1) (1) Every donkey is running. a every : donkey, run (2) Most donkeys are running. a most : donkey, run (3) Every donkey loves a farmer. a every : donkey; b singular : farmer; love(a every, b singular )

2004/3/225 Example (2) (1)If a farmer owns a donkey, he beats it. *He is cruel. (2) Every chess set comes with a spare pawn. It is taped under the box. (P.Sells)

2004/3/226 Example (3) (1) Most donkeys have a tail. They use it to swap flies. (2) #Most donkeys have a tail. It is long. (1’) a most : donkey, b s : tail, a most have b s, a most use b s (2’) [a most : donkey, b s : tail, a most have b s ] → checking (no way to identify the referent of ‘it’)

2004/3/227 Destructive assignment problem In DPL, ∃ x randomly assigns a value to x. So, it happens that when x carries some information about x, ∃ x overwrites this information. To avoid this, indefinites should always quantify over new variables.

2004/3/228 Then, what can we say about spiders

2004/3/229 A strong reading (1) If a farmer owns a donkey, he beats it. (1) is true if each farmer beats every donkey he owns once. (1) is false if some farmer dies before he beats all donkeys he owns. In a model-theoretic semantics,

2004/3/230 Is a strong reading different from a weak reading? (1) If a farmer has a donkey, he beats it. (2) If a man has a credit card, he uses it. What a machine knows about ‘if A, B’ is: if it witnesses A, then it can infer B. depends on knowledge about the world

2004/3/231 No quantification in advance (1) If a man has a credit card, he puts it in his wallet. (2) If a man has a credit card, he uses it. A: a j : man, b j : card, a j have b j B: consequences

2004/3/232 Double-bind problem (1) If a theory is classical, then if it is inconsistent, it is usually trivial. Since there is one input value for the second antecedent, quantification (in terms of ‘usually’) has a problem. A → (B → usually C)