Propositional and

First-Order Logic
19CS15E – Artificial Intelligence
Unit III – Knowledge Representation
CO: Represent a problem using first order and
predicate logic
By
Dr.V.Gomathi, Prof. & Head/ CSE
NEC, Kovilpatti
Introduction to Logic
⚫ Logic is a great knowledge
representation language for many
AI problems
⚫ Propositional logic (PL) is the
simple foundation and fine for
some AI problems
⚫ First order logic (FOL) is much
more expressive as a KR language
and more commonly used in AI
⚫ There are many variations: horn
logic, higher order logic,
Propositional logic
⚫ Logical constants: true, false
⚫ Propositional symbols: P, Q,... (atomic
sentences)
⚫ Wrapping parentheses: ( … )
⚫ Sentences are combined by connectives:
∧ and [conjunction]
∨ or [disjunction]
⇒ implies [implication /
conditional]
⇔ is equivalent [biconditional]
¬ not [negation]
⚫ Literal: atomic sentence or negated
atomic sentence
P, ¬ P
 Formal Grammar of PL
Sentence 🡪 Atomic Sentence | Complex
Sentence

Atomic Sentence 🡪 True | False | P | Q | R

Complex Sentence 🡪 (Sentence) | [Sentence]

| ¬ Sentence
| Sentence ∧ Sentence
| Sentence ∨ Sentence
| Sentence ⇒ Sentence
| Sentence ⇔ Sentence
Operator Precedence: ¬ , ∧, ∨ , ⇒, ⇔
Eg: ¬A ∧ B = (¬A) ∧ B
 Truth tables
• Truth tables are used to define logical connectives
• and to determine when a complex sentence is true
given the values of the symbols in it
Truth tables for the five logical connectives

Example of a truth table used for a complex sentence

 Propositional logic (PL)
⚫ Simple language for showing key ideas and
definitions
⚫ User defines set of propositional symbols,
like P and Q
⚫ User defines semantics of each
propositional symbol:
⚫ P means “It is hot”, Q means “It is humid”, etc.
⚫ A sentence (well formed formula) is defined
as follows:
⚫ A symbol is a sentence
⚫ If S is a sentence, then ¬S is a sentence
⚫ If S is a sentence, then (S) is a sentence
⚫ If S and T are sentences, then (S ∨ T), (S ∧ T), (S
Examples of PL sentences
⚫ (P ∧ Q) → R
“If it is hot and humid, then it is
raining”
⚫Q→P
“If it is humid, then it is hot”
⚫Q
“It is humid.”
⚫ We’re free to choose better
symbols, btw:
Ho = “It is hot”
Hu = “It is humid”
 Terminologies in PL
⚫ The meaning or semantics of a
sentence determines its
interpretation
⚫ Given the truth values of all symbols
in a sentence, it can be “evaluated” to
determine its truth value (True or
False)
⚫ A model for a KB is a possible world –
an assignment of truth values to
propositional symbols that makes
Model for a KB
⚫ Let the KB be [P∧Q→R, Q → P]
⚫ What are the possible models? Consider all
possible assignments of T|F to P, Q and R
and check truth tables
⚫ FFF: OK
P: it’s hot
⚫ FFT: OK
⚫ FTF: NO
Q: it’s humid
⚫ FTT: NO R: it’s raining
⚫ TFF: OK
⚫ TFT: OK
⚫ TTF: NO
⚫ TTT: OK
⚫ If KB is [P∧Q→R, Q → P, Q], then the only
model is TTT
 Wumpus world
⚫ The agent will perceive the stench if he is in
the room adjacent to the Wumpus; will
perceive breeze if he is in the room directly
adjacent to the Pit; will perceive the glitter in
the room where the gold is present; will
perceive the bump if he walks into a wall.
⚫ When the Wumpus is shot, it emits a
horrible scream which can be perceived
anywhere in the cave.
⚫ If agent perceives stench, breeze,
but no glitter, no bump, and
no scream then it
can be represented as:
[Stench, Breeze, None, None, None]
10
 The “Hunt the Wumpus” agent
⚫ Some Atomic Propositions
S12 = There is a stench in cell (1,2)
B34 = There is a breeze in cell (3,4)
W22 = The Wumpus is in cell (2,2)
V11 = We have visited cell (1,1)
OK11 = Cell (1,1) is safe.
etc
⚫ Some rules
(R1) ~S11 => ~W11 ^ ~W12 ^ ~W21
(R2) ~S21 => ~W11 ^ ~W21 ^ ~W22 ^ ~W31
(R3) ~S12 => ~W11 ^ ~W12 ^ ~W22 ^ ~W13
(R4) S12 => W13 v W12 v W22 v W11
etc
⚫ Note that the lack of variables
requires us to give similar rules for
each cell. 11
 After the third move

⚫ We can prove that

the Wumpus is in
(1,3) using the four
rules given.
⚫ See R&N section
6.5

12
Proving W13
~S11
(R1) ~S11 => ~W11 ^ ~W12 ^ ~W21

⚫ Apply MP with ~S11 and R1: ~W11 ^ ~W12 ^ ~W21 ~S21

~W11 ^ ~W12 ^ ~W21
R2
⚫ Apply And-Elimination to this we get 3 sentences: ~W22, ~W21, ~W31
~W11, ~W12, ~W21
⚫ Apply MP to ~S21 and R2, then applying
And-elimination:
~W22, ~W21, ~W31
⚫ Apply MP to S12 and R4 we obtain:
W13 v W12 v W22 v W11
⚫ Apply Unit resolution on (W13 v W12 v W22 v W11)
and ~W11 S12 R4
W13 v W12 v W22
⚫ Apply Unit Resolution with (W13 v W12 v W22) and
~W22 (W13 v W12 v W22 v W11)
~W11
W13 v W12
⚫ Apply UR with (W13 v W12) and ~W12
(W13 v W12 v W22) ~W22 ~W12
W13
⚫ QED
W13 v W12 13
W13
 More terms
⚫ A valid sentence or tautology is a
sentence that is True under all
interpretations, no matter what the
world is actually like or what the
semantics is. Example: “It’s raining or
it’s not raining”
⚫ An inconsistent sentence or
contradiction is a sentence that is False
under all interpretations. The world is
never like what it describes, as in “It’s
raining and it’s not raining.”
⚫ P entails Q, written P |= Q, means that
 On the implies connective: P →
Q
⚫ Note that → is a logical connective
⚫ So P→Q is a logical sentence and
has a truth value, i.e., is either true
or false
⚫ If we add this sentence to the KB, it
can be used by an inference rule,
Modes Ponens, to derive/infer/prove
Q if P is also in the KB
⚫ Given a KB where P=True and
Q=True, we can also
 P→Q
⚫ When is P→Q true? Check all that
apply
❑ P=Q=true
❑ P=Q=false
❑ P=true, Q=false
❑ P=false, Q=true
 P→Q
⚫ When is P→Q true? Check all that
apply
✔
❑✔P=Q=true
❑ P=Q=false
❑ P=true, Q=false
✔
❑ P=false, Q=true
⚫ We can get this from the truth
table for →
⚫ Note: in FOL it’s much harder to
prove that a conditional true.
Inference rules
⚫ Logical inference creates new
sentences that logically follow from a
set of sentences (KB)
⚫ An inference rule is sound if every
sentence X it produces when operating
on a KB logically follows from the KB
⚫ i.e., inference rule creates no
contradictions
⚫ An inference rule is complete if it can
produce every expression that
logically follows from (is entailed by)
 Sound rules of inference
⚫ Here are some examples of sound rules of
inference
⚫ Each can be shown to be sound using a truth
table
RULE PREMISE CONCLUSION
Modus Ponens A, A → B B
And Introduction A, B A∧B
And Elimination A∧B A
Double Negation ¬¬A A
Unit Resolution A ∨ B, ¬B A
Resolution A ∨ B, ¬B ∨ C A∨C
Soundness of modus ponens
A B A→B OK?
True True True
√
True False False
√
False True True
√
False False True
√
 Resolution
⚫ Resolution is a valid inference rule
producing a new clause implied by two
clauses containing complementary literals
⚫ A literal is an atomic symbol or its negation,
i.e., P, ~P
⚫ Amazingly, this is the only interference
rule you need to build a sound and
complete theorem prover
⚫ Based on proof by contradiction and usually
called resolution refutation
⚫ The resolution rule was discovered by
Alan Robinson (CS, U. of Syracuse) in the
 Resolution
⚫ A KB is actually a set of sentences all of
which are true, i.e., a conjunction of
sentences.
⚫ To use resolution, put KB into conjunctive
normal form (CNF), where each sentence
Tautologies
written as a disjunc- tion of(A→B)↔(~A∨B)
(one or more)
literals (A∨(B∧C)) ↔(A∨B)∧
Example (A∨C)

• KB: [P→Q , Q→R∧S]

• KB in CNF: [~P∨Q , ~Q∨R , ~Q∨S]
• Resolve KB(1) and KB(2) producing: ~P∨R (i.e.,
P→R)
• Resolve KB(1) and KB(3) producing: ~P∨S (i.e.,
 Soundness of the
resolution inference rule

From the rightmost three columns of this truth table, we

can see that
(α ∨ β) ∧ (β ∨ γ) ↔ (α ∨ γ)
is valid (i.e., always true regardless of the truth values
assigned to α, β and γ
 Proving things
⚫ A proof is a sequence of sentences, where each
is a premise or is derived from earlier sentences
in the proof by an inference rule
⚫ The last sentence is the theorem (also called
goal or query) that we want to prove
⚫ Example for the “weather problem”
1 Hu premise “It’s humid”
2 Hu→Ho premise “If it’s humid, it’s hot”
3 Ho modus ponens(1,2) “It’s hot”
4 (Ho∧Hu)→R premise “If it’s hot & humid, it’s
raining”
5 Ho∧Hu and introduction(1,3) “It’s hot and humid”
6 R modus ponens(4,5) “It’s raining”
 Horn sentences
⚫ A Horn sentence or Horn clause has the
form:
P1 ∧ P2 ∧ P3 ... ∧ Pn → Qm where n>=0,
m in{0,1}
⚫ Note: a conjunction of 0 or more symbols
to left of → and 0-1 symbols to right
⚫ Special cases:
⚫ n=0, m=1: P (assert P is true)
⚫ n>0, m=0: P∧Q → (constraint: both P and Q
can’t be true)
⚫ n=0, m=0: (well, there is nothing there!)
⚫ Put in CNF: each sentence is a disjunction
of literals with at most one non-negative
(P → Q) = (¬P ∨ Q)
literal
 Significance of Horn logic
⚫ We can also have horn sentences in
FOL
⚫ Reasoning with horn clauses is much
simpler
⚫ Satisfiability of a propositional KB (i.e.,
finding values for a symbols that will
make it true) is NP complete
⚫ Restricting KB to horn sentences,
satisfiability is in P
⚫ For this reason, FOL Horn sentences are
the basis for Prolog and Datalog
⚫ What Horn sentences give up are
Entailment and derivation
⚫ Entailment: KB |= Q
⚫ Q is entailed by KB (set sentences) iff
there is no logically possible world
where Q is false while all the sentences
in KB are true
⚫ Or, stated positively, Q is entailed by KB
iff the conclusion is true in every
logically possible world in which all the
premises in KB are true
⚫ Derivation: KB |- Q
⚫ We can derive Q from KB if there’s a
proof consisting of a sequence of valid
inference steps starting from the
Two important properties for
inference
Soundness: If KB |- Q then KB |= Q
⚫ If Q is derived from KB using a given set
of rules of inference, then Q is entailed
by KB
⚫ Hence, inference produces only real
entailments, or any sentence that follows
deductively from the premises is valid
Completeness: If KB |= Q then KB |- Q
⚫ If Q is entailed by KB, then Q can be
derived from KB using the rules of
inference
⚫ Hence, inference produces all
entailments, or all valid sentences can be
proved from the premises
 Propositional logic: pro and con
⚫ Advantages
⚫ Simple KR language sufficient for some
problems
⚫ Lays the foundation for higher logics
(e.g., FOL)
⚫ Reasoning is decidable, though NP
complete, and efficient techniques exist
for many problems
⚫ Disadvantages
⚫ Not expressive enough for most
problems
PL is a weak KR language
⚫ Hard to identify “individuals” (e.g.,
Mary, 3)
⚫ Can’t directly talk about properties of
individuals or relations between
individuals (e.g., “Bill is tall”)
⚫ Generalizations, patterns, regularities
can’t easily be represented (e.g., “all
triangles have 3 sides”)
⚫ First-Order Logic (FOL) is expressive
enough to represent this kind of
information using relations, variables
and quantifiers, e.g.,
PL Example
⚫ Consider the problem of representing
the following information:
⚫ Every person is mortal.
⚫ Confucius is a person.
⚫ Confucius is mortal.
⚫ How can these sentences be represented
so that we can infer the third sentence
from the first two?
 PL Example
⚫ In PL we have to create propositional symbols
to stand for all or part of each sentence, e.g.:
P = “person”; Q = “mortal”; R = “Confucius”
⚫ The above 3 sentences are represented as:
P → Q; R → P; R → Q
⚫ The 3rd sentence is entailed by the first two, but
we need an explicit symbol, R, to represent an
individual, Confucius, who is a member of the
classes person and mortal
⚫ Representing other individuals requires
introducing separate symbols for each, with
some way to represent the fact that all
individuals who are “people” are also “mortal”
 Hunt the Wumpus domain
⚫ Some atomic propositions:
S12 = There is a stench in cell (1,2)
B34 = There is a breeze in cell (3,4)
W22 = Wumpus is in cell (2,2)
V11 = We’ve visited cell (1,1)
OK11 = Cell (1,1) is safe.
…
⚫ Some rules:
(R1) ¬S11 → ¬W11 ∧ ¬ W12 ∧ ¬ W21
(R2) ¬ S21 → ¬W11 ∧ ¬ W21 ∧ ¬ W22 ∧ ¬ W31
(R3) ¬ S12 → ¬W11 ∧ ¬ W12 ∧ ¬ W22 ∧ ¬ W13
(R4) S12 → W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 ∨ W11
…

⚫ The lack of variables requires us to give

similar rules for each cell!
 After the third move

We can prove
that the
Wumpus is in
(1,3) using the
four rules
given.

See R&N
section 7.5
Proving W13
Apply MP with ¬S11 and R1:
¬ W11 ∧ ¬ W12 ∧ ¬ W21
Apply And-Elimination to this, yielding 3 sentences:
¬ W11, ¬ W12, ¬ W21
Apply MP to ~S21 and R2, then apply And-elimination:
¬ W22, ¬ W21, ¬ W31
Apply MP to S12 and R4 to obtain:
W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 ∨ W11
Apply Unit resolution on (W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22 ∨ W11)
and ¬W11:
W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22
Apply Unit Resolution with (W13 ∨ W12 ∨ W22) and
¬W22:
W13 ∨ W12
Apply UR with (W13 ∨ W12) and ¬W12:
W13
Propositional Wumpus hunter problems
⚫ Lack of variables prevents stating more
general rules
⚫ We need a set of similar rules for each
cell
⚫ Change of the KB over time is difficult
to represent
⚫ Standard technique is to index facts
with the time when they’re true
⚫ This means we have a separate KB for
every time point
 Propositional logic summary
⚫ Inference is the process of deriving new
sentences from old
⚫ Sound inference derives true conclusions given
true premises
⚫ Complete inference derives all true
conclusions from a set of premises
⚫ A valid sentence is true in all worlds under all
interpretations
⚫ If an implication sentence can be shown to be
valid, then—given its premise—its
consequent can be derived
⚫ Different logics make different commitments
about what the world is made of and what