Examples of Predicate Logic Proofs. Example 1 Argument: ( ∀ x ∈ D, P(x)) ˅ ( ∃ y ∈ D, Q(y)) ∃ z ∈ D, ~P(z) ---------------------------- ∃ w ∈ D, Q(w)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Discrete Math Methods of proof 1.
Advertisements

CPSC 121: Models of Computation Unit 6 Rewriting Predicate Logic Statements Based on slides by Patrice Belleville and Steve Wolfman.
Predicate Calculus Formal Methods in Verification of Computer Systems Jeremy Johnson.
Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof
1/03/09 De 89 à 98. 1/03/09 De 89 à 98 1/03/09 De 89 à 98.
Chapter 1 The Logic of Compound Statements. Section 1.3 Valid & Invalid Arguments.
CS128 – Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science
Discussion #17 1/15 Discussion #17 Derivations. Discussion #17 2/15 Topics Derivations  proofs in predicate calculus Inference Rules with Quantifiers.
Discrete Mathematics Lecture 2 Logic of Quantified Statements,
Snick  snack CPSC 121: Models of Computation 2008/9 Winter Term 2 Rewriting Predicate Logic Statements Steve Wolfman, based on notes by Patrice Belleville.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 6 Predicate Logic Autumn 2011 CSE 3111.
1 Indirect Argument: Contradiction and Contraposition.
 x (x 2  0) 1. True2. False.  x (3x + 2 = 12) 1. True2. False.
Snick  snack CPSC 121: Models of Computation 2011 Winter Term 1 Proof Techniques (Part B) Steve Wolfman, based on notes by Patrice Belleville and others.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Discrete Structures Chapter 3: The Logic of Quantified Statements
All rights reservedL. Manevitz Lecture 51 Artificial Intelligence Logic Part 2 L. Manevitz.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 6 Predicate Logic, Logical Inference Spring
CSci 2011 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3 CSci 2011.
V0.
Copyright © Curt Hill Rules of Inference What is a valid argument?
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.
Conjunctive normal form: any formula of the predicate calculus can be transformed into a conjunctive normal form. Def. A formula is said to be in conjunctive.
Chapter 2 The Logic of Quantified Statements. Section 2.4 Arguments with Quantified Statements.
Nested Quantifiers. 2 Nested Iteration Let the domain be {1, 2, …, 10}. Let P(x, y) denote x > y.  x,  y, P(x, y) means  x, (  y, P(x, y) ) Is the.
Discrete Mathematics CS 2610 August 24, Agenda Last class Introduction to predicates and quantifiers This class Nested quantifiers Proofs.
1 Section 7.2 Equivalent Formulas Two wffs A and B are equivalent, written A  B, if they have the same truth value for every interpretation. Property:
2.3Logical Implication: Rules of Inference From the notion of a valid argument, we begin a formal study of what we shall mean by an argument and when such.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 5 Predicate Logic Spring
CT214 – Logical Foundations of Computing Lecture 9 Revision.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I Lecture 7 Logical Inference Autumn 2012 CSE
Thinking Mathematically Equivalent Statements, Conditional Statements, and De Morgan’s Laws.
Predicates and Quantified Statements
Scope, free variable, closed wff §In  X(A) or  X(A), where A is a wff : X is called the variable quantified over; A is said to be (within) the scope.
Methods of Proof Dr. Yasir Ali. Proof A (logical) proof of a statement is a finite sequence of statements (called the steps of the proof) leading from.
1 Introduction to Abstract Mathematics Proofs in Predicate Logic , , ~, ,  Instructor: Hayk Melikya Purpose of Section: The theorems.
Discrete Mathematics CS 2610 August 22, Agenda Last class Propositional logic Logical equivalences This week Predicate logic & rules of inference.
1 Section 9.1 Automatic Reasoning Recall that a wff W is valid iff ¬ W is unsatisfiable. Resolution is an inference rule used to prove unsatisfiability.
Chapter 2 Symbolic Logic. Section 2-1 Truth, Equivalence and Implication.
CS 285- Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4. Section 1.3 Predicate logic Predicate logic is an extension of propositional logic that permits concisely reasoning.
For Wednesday Finish reading chapter 10 – can skip chapter 8 No written homework.
Proofs in Predicate Calculus
2007 D iscrete The foundations C ounting theory N umber theory G raphs & trees structure s
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.
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.
Mathematics for Comter I Lecture 3: Logic (2) Propositional Equivalences Predicates and Quantifiers.
。 33 投资环境 3 开阔视野 提升竞争力 。 3 嘉峪关市概况 。 3 。 3 嘉峪关是一座新兴的工业旅游城市,因关得名,因企设市,是长城文化与丝路文化交 汇点,是全国唯一一座以长城关隘命名的城市。嘉峪关关城位于祁连山、黑山之间。 1965 年建市,下辖雄关区、镜铁区、长城区, 全市总面积 2935.
2. The Logic of Compound Statements Summary
3. The Logic of Quantified Statements Summary
Advanced Algorithms Analysis and Design
Chapter 3 The Logic of Quantified Statements
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I
Negations of Quantified Statements
Chapter 1 The Foundations: Logic and Proofs
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
CS 1502 Formal Methods in Computer Science
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I
Introduction to Predicates and Quantified Statements II
Lecture 11 CS 1813 – Discrete Mathematics
Negations of quantifiers
5 Categorical Syllogisms
Discrete Mathematics CMP-200 Propositional Equivalences, Predicates & Quantifiers, Negating Quantified Statements Abdul Hameed
Discrete Mathematics Lecture 4 Logic of Quantified Statements
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
CPSC 121: Models of Computation
Logic and Reasoning.
More Derived Rules.
Presentation transcript:

Examples of Predicate Logic Proofs

Example 1 Argument: ( ∀ x ∈ D, P(x)) ˅ ( ∃ y ∈ D, Q(y)) ∃ z ∈ D, ~P(z) ∃ w ∈ D, Q(w) Proof: 1. ( ∀ x ∈ D, P(x)) ˅ ( ∃ y ∈ D, Q(y)) premise 2. ∃ z ∈ D, ~P(z)premise 3. ~ ∀ z ∈ D, P(z)2, gen. De Morgan or quad. negation 4. ~ ∀ x ∈ D, P(x) 3, var, change (may skip) 5. ∃ y ∈ D, Q(y) 1,4, elimination 6. ∃ w ∈ D, Q(w)5, var. change

Example 2 Argument: ∀ x ∈ D, P(x) → Q(x) ∀ y ∈ D, Q(y) → R(y) ∀ z ∈ D, ~R(z) → ~P(z) Proof: 1. ∀ x ∈ D, P(x) → Q(x)premise 2. ∀ y ∈ D, Q(y) → R(y)premise 3. P(g) → Q(g)1, univ. inst. g –a generic element of D 4. Q(g) → R(g)2, univ. inst. 5. P(g) → R(g)3,4, trans. of → 6. ~R(g) → ~P(g)5, contrapositive 7. ∀ z ∈ D, ~R(z) → ~P(z)6, univ. gen.

Example 3 Argument: ∀ x ∈ D, P(x) → Q(x) ∃ y ∈ D, Q(y) → R(y) ∃ z ∈ D, ~R(z) → ~P(z) Proof: 1. ∀ x ∈ D, P(x) → Q(x)premise 2. ∃ y ∈ D, Q(y) → R(y)premise 3. Q(w) → R(w)2, exist. inst. w – not used before 4. P(w) → Q(w)1, univ. inst. 5. P(w) → R(w)3,4, transitivity 6. ~R(w) → ~P(w)5, contrapositive 7. ∃ z ∈ D, ~R(z) → ~P(z)6, exist. gen.