First-Order Logic

Chapter 8
 Outline
• Why FOL?
• Syntax and semantics of FOL
• Using FOL
• Wumpus world in FOL
• Knowledge engineering in FOL
 Pros and cons of propositional
logic
 Propositional logic is declarative
 Propositional logic allows partial/disjunctive/negated
information
– (unlike most data structures and databases)
 Propositional logic is compositional:
– meaning of B1,1  P1,2 is derived from meaning of B1,1 and of P1,2
 Meaning in propositional logic is context-independent
(unlike natural language, where meaning depends on context)
 Propositional logic has very limited expressive power
(unlike natural language)
– E.g., cannot say "pits cause breezes in adjacent squares“
• except by writing one sentence for each square
 Propositional logic is a weak 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 (abbreviated FOL or
FOPC) is expressive enough to concisely
represent this kind of information
FOL adds relations, variables, and quantifiers,
e.g.,
•“Every elephant is gray”:  x (elephant(x) → gray(x))
•“There is a white alligator”:  x (alligator(X) ^ white(X))
 First-order logic
Propositional logic assumes the world
contains facts.
First-order logic (like natural language)
assumes the world contains
– Objects: people, houses, numbers, colors,
baseball games, wars, …
– Relations: red, round, prime, brother of,
bigger than, part of, comes between, …
– Functions: father of, best friend, one more
than, plus, …
 Syntax of FOL: Basic elements
• Constants KingJohn, 2, NUS,...
• Predicates Brother, >,...
• Functions Sqrt, LeftLegOf,...
• Variables x, y, a, b,...
• Connectives , , , , 
• Equality =
• Quantifiers , 
 Atomic sentences
Atomic sentence = predicate (term1,...,termn)
or term1 = term2

Term = function (term1,...,termn)

or constant or variable

• E.g., Brother(KingJohn,RichardTheLionheart) >

(Length(LeftLegOf(Richard)),
Length(LeftLegOf(KingJohn)))
 Complex sentences
• Complex sentences are made from atomic
sentences using connectives
•
S, S1  S2, S1  S2, S1  S2, S1  S2,

E.g.
Sibling(KingJohn,Richard) Sibling(Richard,KingJohn)
>(1,2)  ≤ (1,2)
>(1,2)   >(1,2)
 Backus–Naur form for FOL
• Sentence → AtomicSentence | ComplexSentence
• AtomicSentence → Predicate | Predicate(Term,...) | Term = Term
• ComplexSentence → ( Sentence ) | [ Sentence ] | ¬ Sentence | Sentence ∧
Sentence | Sentence ∨ Sentence | Sentence ⇒ Sentence | Sentence ⇔
Sentence | Quantifier Variable,... Sentence
• Term → Function(Term,...) | Constant | Variable
• Quantifier → ∀| ∃
• Constant → A | X1 | John | ···
• Variable → a | x | s | ···
• Predicate → True | False | After | Loves | Raining | ···
• Function → Mother | LeftLeg | ···
• OPERATOR PRECEDENCE : ¬, =, ∧, ∨, ⇒, ⇔
 Truth in first-order logic
• Sentences are true with respect to a model and an interpretation

• Model contains objects (domain elements) and relations among

them
•

• Interpretation specifies referents for

constant symbols → objects

predicate symbols → relations

function symbols → functional relations

• An atomic sentence predicate(term 1,...,term n) is true

iff the objects referred to by term 1,...,term n
are in the relation referred to by predicate
Models for FOL: Example
 Translating English to FOL
Every gardener likes the sun.
x gardener(x)  likes(x,Sun)
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
x t person(x) time(t)  can-fool(x,t)
You can fool all of the people some of the time.
x t (person(x)  time(t) can-fool(x,t))
x (person(x)  t (time(t) can-fool(x,t)))
Equivalent
All purple mushrooms are poisonous.
x (mushroom(x)  purple(x))  poisonous(x)
No purple mushroom is poisonous.
x purple(x)  mushroom(x)  poisonous(x)
x (mushroom(x)  purple(x))  poisonous(x) Equivalent
There are exactly two purple mushrooms.
x y mushroom(x)  purple(x)  mushroom(y)  purple(y) ^ (x=y)  z
(mushroom(z)  purple(z))  ((x=z)  (y=z))
Clinton is not tall.
tall(Clinton)
X is above Y iff X is on directly on top of Y or there is a pile of one or
more other objects directly on top of one another starting with X and
ending with Y.
x y above(x,y) ↔ (on(x,y)  z (on(x,z)  above(z,y)))
 Universal quantification
• <variables> <sentence>
Everyone at NUS is smart:
x At(x,NUS)  Smart(x)

• x P is true in a model m iff P is true with x being each

possible object in the model

• Roughly speaking, equivalent to the conjunction of

instantiations of P
•
At(KingJohn,NUS)  Smart(KingJohn)
 At(Richard,NUS)  Smart(Richard)
 At(NUS,NUS)  Smart(NUS)
 ...
 A common mistake to avoid
• Typically,  is the main connective with 
• Common mistake: using  as the main
connective with :
x At(x,NUS)  Smart(x) means “Everyone is at NUS
and everyone is smart”
 Existential quantification
• <variables> <sentence>

• Someone at NUS is smart:

• x At(x,NUS)  Smart(x)
•
• x P is true in a model m iff P is true with x being some
possible object in the model
•
• Roughly speaking, equivalent to the disjunction of
instantiations of P
•
At(KingJohn,NUS)  Smart(KingJohn)
 At(Richard,NUS)  Smart(Richard)
 At(NUS,NUS)  Smart(NUS)
 Another common mistake to
avoid
• Typically,  is the main connective with 

• Common mistake: using  as the main

connective with :
•
x At(x,NUS)  Smart(x)

is true if there is anyone who is not at NUS!

 Properties of quantifiers
• x y is the same as y x

• x y is the same as y x

• x y is not the same as y x

• x y Loves(x,y)
– “There is a person who loves everyone in the world”

• y x Loves(x,y)
– “Everyone in the world is loved by at least one person”

• Quantifier duality: each can be expressed using the other

• x Likes(x,IceCream) x Likes(x,IceCream)

• x Likes(x,Broccoli) x Likes(x,Broccoli)

 Equality
• term1 = term2 is true under a given interpretation
if and only if term1 and term2 refer to the same
object
•

• E.g., definition of Sibling in terms of Parent:

•
x,y Sibling(x,y)  [(x = y)  m,f  (m = f) 
Parent(m,x)  Parent(f,x)  Parent(m,y)  Parent(f,y)]
 The kinship domain
• One’s mother is one’s female parent:
∀ m, c Mother (c) = m ⇔ Female(m) ∧ Parent(m, c) .
• One’s husband is one’s male spouse:
∀ w, h Husband(h, w) ⇔ Male(h) ∧ Spouse(h, w) .
• Male and female are disjoint categories:
∀ x Male(x) ⇔ ¬Female(x) .
• Parent and child are inverse relations:
∀ p, c Parent(p, c) ⇔ Child(c, p) .
• A grandparent is a parent of one’s parent:
∀ g, c Grandparent(g, c) ⇔ ∃ p Parent(g, p) ∧ Parent(p, c) .
A sibling is another child of one’s parents:
∀ x, y Sibling(x, y) ⇔ x = y ∧ ∃ p Parent(p, x) ∧ Parent(p, y)
.
 Sets
1. The only sets are the empty set and those made by
adjoining something to a set:
∀ s Set(s) ⇔ (s = { }) ∨ (∃ x, s2 Set(s2) ∧ s = {x|s2}) .
2. The empty set has no elements adjoined into it. In other
words, there is no way to decompose { } into a smaller set
and an element:
¬∃ x, s {x|s} = { } .
3. Adjoining an element already in the set has no effect:
∀ x, s x∈ s ⇔ s = {x|s} .
4. The only members of a set are the elements that were
adjoined into it. We express this recursively, saying that x is
a member of s if and only if s is equal to some set s2
adjoined with some element y, where either y is the same
as x or x is a member of s2:
∀ x, s x∈ s ⇔ ∃ y, s2 (s = {y|s2} ∧ (x = y ∨ x∈ s2)) .
5. A set is a subset of another set if and only
if all of the first set’s members are members
of the second set:
∀ s1, s2 s1 ⊆ s2 ⇔ (∀ x x∈ s1 ⇒ x∈ s2) .
6. Two sets are equal if and only if each is a
subset of the other:
∀ s1, s2 (s1 = s2) ⇔ (s1 ⊆ s2 ∧ s2 ⊆ s1) .
 Assertions and queries in first-
order logic
• Sentences are added to a knowledge base
using TELL, exactly as in propositional
logic. Such sentences are called
ASSERTIONS.
• TELL(KB, King(John)) .
• TELL(KB, Person(Richard)) .
• TELL(KB, ∀ x King(x) ⇒ Person(x)) .
• Questions asked with ASK are called
queries or goals
• ASK(KB, Person(John))
• ASK(KB, ∃ x Person(x)) .-returns true not
useful
• ASKVARS(KB,Person(x))- :
returns{x/John} and {x/Richard}.
• . Such an answer is called a substitution or
binding list
 Wumpus World-FOL
• Sensed value at t=5
Percept([Stench, Breeze, Glitter , None,
None], 5) .
Actions Possible:
• Turn(Right), Turn(Left), Forward, Shoot,
Grab, Climb .
Query
ASKVARS(∃ a BestAction(a, 5)) ,
returns {a/Grab}
• ∀ t, s, g, m, c Percept([s, Breeze, g, m, c],
t) ⇒ Breeze(t) ,
• ∀ t, s, b, m, c Percept([s, b, Glitter , m, c],
t) ⇒ Glitter(t) ,
• ∀ t Glitter (t) ⇒ BestAction(Grab, t) .
• ∀ x, y, a, b Adjacent([x, y], [a, b]) ⇔ (x = a
∧ (y = b − 1 ∨ y = b + 1)) ∨ (y = b ∧ (x = a
− 1 ∨ x = a + 1)) .
• At(Agent, s, t) to mean that the agent is at
square s at time t.
• ∀t At(Wumpus, [2, 2], t).
• ∀ x, s1, s2, t At(x, s1, t) ∧ At(x, s2, t) ⇒
s1 = s2 .
∀ s, t At(Agent, s, t) ∧ Breeze(t) ⇒ Breezy(s)
∀ s Breezy(s) ⇔ ∃ r Adjacent(r, s) ∧ Pit(r) .
∀ t HaveArrow(t + 1) ⇔ (HaveArrow(t) ∧
¬Action(Shoot, t)) .
 Interacting with FOL KBs
• Suppose a wumpus-world agent is using an FOL KB and perceives a smell
and a breeze (but no glitter) at t=5:

Tell(KB,Percept([Smell,Breeze,None],5))
Ask(KB,a BestAction(a,5))

• I.e., does the KB entail some best action at t=5?

• Answer: Yes, {a/Shoot} ← substitution (binding list)

• Given a sentence S and a substitution σ,

• Sσ denotes the result of plugging σ into S; e.g.,
S = Smarter(x,y)
σ = {x/Hillary,y/Bill}
Sσ = Smarter(Hillary,Bill)

• Ask(KB,S) returns some/all σ such that KB╞ σ

 Knowledge base for the
wumpus world
• Perception
– t,s,b Percept([s,b,Glitter],t)  Glitter(t)
–

• Reflex
– t Glitter(t)  BestAction(Grab,t)
 Deducing hidden properties
• x,y,a,b Adjacent([x,y],[a,b]) 
[a,b]  {[x+1,y], [x-1,y],[x,y+1],[x,y-1]}

Properties of squares:
• s,t At(Agent,s,t)  Breeze(t)  Breezy(s)
Squares are breezy near a pit:
Diagnostic rule---infer cause from effect
s Breezy(s)  ∃{r} Adjacent(r,s)  Pit(r)

– Causal rule---infer effect from cause

r Pit(r)  [s Adjacent(r,s)  Breezy(s)
• Reference: Artificial Intelligence A Modern
Approach,Third Edition by Stuart Russell
and Peter Norvig