First-Order Logic

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))
 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?
 Example II
• In PL we have to create propositional symbols to stand for all or
part of each sentence. For example, we might have:
P = “person”; Q = “mortal”; R = “Confucius”
• so the above 3 sentences are represented as:
P  Q; R  P; R  Q
• Although the third sentence is entailed by the first two, we needed
an explicit symbol, R, to represent an individual, Confucius, who
is a member of the classes “person” and “mortal”
• To represent other individuals we must introduce separate
symbols for each one, with some way to represent the fact that all
individuals who are “people” are also “mortal”
 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  W12  W22  W11
etc
• Note that the lack of variables requires us to give similar
rules for each cell
 Problems with the
propositional Wumpus hunter

• 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
First-Order Logic
 First-order logic
• First-order logic (FOL) models the world in terms of
– Objects, which are things with individual identities
– Properties of objects that distinguish them from other objects
– Relations that hold among sets of objects
– Functions, which are a subset of relations where there is only one
“value” for any given “input”
• Examples:
– Objects: Students, lectures, companies, cars, 1CR21AD001, ...
– Relations: Brother-of, bigger-than, outside, part-of, has-color,
occurs-after, owns, visits, precedes, ...
– Properties: blue, oval, even, large, ...
– Functions: father-of, best-friend, second-half, one-more-than ...
 Examples
• Objects – Nouns and noun phrases
– Squares, pits, wumpuses
• Relations – verbs and verb phrases
– Is breezy, is adjacent to, shoots
• Functions – relations in which thee is only one value for a
given input.
– Father of, color of etc
• Properties are unary relations
– Red, bogus, round
 Examples of first order logic
• “One plus two equals three”
– Objects – one, two, three, one plus three
– Relations – equals
– Functions – plus

• “Squares neighbouring the Wumpus is smelly”

– Objects – Wumpus, squares
– Property – smelly
– Relations – neighbouring
– Functions - nil
Syntax of first order logic
 Symbols in FOL (User provides)
• Constant symbols, which represent individuals (objects) in the
world
– Mary, India
–3
– Green
• Function symbols, which map individuals to individuals, functions
– father-of(Mary) = John
– color-of(Sky) = Blue
• Predicate symbols, which map individuals to truth values (relations)
– greater(5,3)
– green(Grass)
– color(Grass, Green)
 FOL Provides
• Variable symbols
– E.g., x, y, foo
• Connectives
– Same as in PL: not (), and (), or (), implies ( or
→), if and only if (biconditional  or )
• Quantifiers
– Universal x or (Ax)
– Existential x or (Ex)
 Sentences are built from terms and atoms
• A term (denoting a real-world individual) is a constant symbol, a
variable symbol, or an n-place function of n terms.
x and f(x1, ..., xn) are terms, where each xi is a term.
A term with no variables is a ground term
• An atomic sentence (which has value true or false) is an n-place
predicate of n terms
• A complex sentence is formed from atomic sentences connected
by the logical connectives:
P, PQ, PQ, P  Q, P  Q where P and Q are sentences
• A quantified sentence adds quantifiers  and 
• A well-formed formula (wff) is a sentence containing no “free”
variables. That is, all variables are “bound” by universal or
existential quantifiers.
(x)P(x,y) has x bound as a universally quantified variable, but y is free.
 Quantifiers
• Universal quantification, <variable> <sentence>
– (x)P(x) means that P holds for all values of x in the domain associated
with that variable
– E.g., (x) dolphin(x) → mammal(x)
– Every student of AInDS at CMRIT is smart
• x:AInDSstudent_at(x, CMRIT) → smart(x)
• Existential quantification,  <variable> <sentence>
– ( x)P(x) means that P holds for some value of x in the domain
associated with that variable
– E.g., ( x) mammal(x)  lays-eggs(x)
– Permits one to make a statement about some object without naming it
– There doesn’t exist someone who loves broccoli
–   x: loves(x, broccoli)
– x:  loves(x, broccoli) is equivalent to   x: loves(x, broccoli)
– Therefore, universal quantifier  is just a conjunction over the universe
of objects and existential qualification  is just a disjunction over the
same space.
 Quantifiers
• Universal quantifiers are often used with “implies” to form “rules”:
(x) student(x) → smart(x) means “All students are smart”
• Universal quantification is rarely used to make blanket statements
about every individual in the world:
(x)student(x)smart(x) means “Everyone in the world is a student and is smart”
• Existential quantifiers are usually used with “and” to specify a list of
properties about an individual:
(x) student(x)  smart(x) means “There is a student who is smart”
• A common mistake is to represent this English sentence as the FOL
sentence:
(x) student(x) → smart(x)
– But what happens when there is a person who is not a student?
 Quantifier Scope
• Switching the order of universal quantifiers does not change
the meaning:
– (x)(y)P(x,y) (y)(x) P(x,y)
• Similarly, you can switch the order of existential
quantifiers:
– (x)(y)P(x,y) (y)(x) P(x,y)
• Switching the order of universals and existentials does
change meaning:
– Everyone likes someone: (x)(y) likes(x,y)
– Someone is liked by everyone: (y)(x) likes(x,y)
Connections between All and Exists

We can relate sentences involving  and 

using De Morgan’s laws:
(x) P(x) (x) P(x)
(x) P (x) P(x)
(x) P(x)  (x) P(x)
(x) P(x) (x) P(x)

Conjunctions and disjunctions

 Quantified inference rules
• Universal instantiation
– x P(x)  P(A)
• Universal generalization
– P(A)  P(B) …  x P(x)
• Existential instantiation
– x P(x) P(F)  skolem constant F
• Existential generalization
– P(A)  x P(x)
 Universal instantiation
(a.k.a. universal elimination)
• If (x) P(x) is true, then P(C) is true, where C is any
constant in the domain of x
• Example:
(x) eats(Ziggy, x)  eats(Ziggy, IceCream)
• The variable symbol can be replaced by any ground term,
i.e., any constant symbol or function symbol applied to
ground terms only
 Existential instantiation
(a.k.a. existential elimination)
• From (x) P(x) infer P(c)
• Example:
– (x) eats(Ziggy, x) → eats(Ziggy, Stuff)
• Note that the variable is replaced by a brand-new constant
not occurring in this or any other sentence in the KB
• Also known as skolemization; constant is a skolem
constant
• In other words, we don’t want to accidentally draw other
inferences about it by introducing the constant
• Convenient to use this to reason about the unknown object,
rather than constantly manipulating the existential quantifier
 Existential generalization
(a.k.a. existential introduction)
• If P(c) is true, then (x) P(x) is inferred.
• Example
eats(Ziggy, IceCream)  (x) eats(Ziggy, x)
• All instances of the given constant symbol are replaced by
the new variable symbol
• Note that the variable symbol cannot already exist
anywhere in the expression
 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)))
 Example: A simple genealogy KB by FOL
• Build a small genealogy knowledge base using FOL that
– contains facts of immediate family relations (spouses, parents, etc.)
– contains definitions of more complex relations (ancestors, relatives)
– is able to answer queries about relationships between people
• Predicates:
– parent(x, y), child(x, y), father(x, y), daughter(x, y), etc.
– spouse(x, y), husband(x, y), wife(x,y)
– ancestor(x, y), descendant(x, y)
– male(x), female(y)
– relative(x, y)
• Facts:
– husband(Joe, Mary), son(Fred, Joe)
– spouse(John, Nancy), male(John), son(Mark, Nancy)
– father(Jack, Nancy), daughter(Linda, Jack)
– daughter(Liz, Linda)
– etc.
• Rules for genealogical relations
– (x,y) parent(x, y) child (y, x)
(x,y) father(x, y) parent(x, y)  male(x) (similarly for mother(x, y))
(x,y) daughter(x, y) child(x, y)  female(x) (similarly for son(x, y))
– (x,y) husband(x, y) spouse(x, y)  male(x) (similarly for wife(x, y))
(x,y) spouse(x, y) spouse(y, x) (spouse relation is symmetric)
– (x,y) parent(x, y) → ancestor(x, y)
(x,y)(z) parent(x, z)  ancestor(z, y) → ancestor(x, y)
– (x,y) descendant(x, y) ancestor(y, x)
– (x,y)(z) ancestor(z, x)  ancestor(z, y) → relative(x, y)
(related by common ancestry)
(x,y) spouse(x, y) → relative(x, y) (related by marriage)
(x,y)(z) relative(z, x)  relative(z, y) → relative(x, y) (transitive)
(x,y) relative(x, y) relative(y, x) (symmetric)
• Queries
– ancestor(Jack, Fred) /* the answer is yes */
– relative(Liz, Joe) /* the answer is yes */
– relative(Nancy, Matthew)
/* no answer in general, no if under closed world assumption */
– (z) ancestor(z, Fred)  ancestor(z, Liz)