CSC510 Report
Uploaded by
Khairi SyafiCSC510 Report
Uploaded by
Khairi SyafiBACHELOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE (HONS.
)
COMPUTER NETWORKS
DISCRETE STRUCTURES
CS510
GROUP PROJECT
NO. NAME NO MATRIKS
1 KHAIRI SYAFI BIN KHAIRUL ANUAR 2022608028
2 MUHAMMAD WAFI BIN ZAMRI 2022615576
3 MUHAMMAD EIZWAN BIN EDIASTARI 2022881822
4 ADIB AHZA BIN AKTAR 2022882778
5 AHMAD KAMAL BIN MOHAMAD KAMARUDIN 2022477856
TABLE OF CONTENTS
No. Content Page
1 Introduction 2
2 Objectives 3
3 Problem Analysis 3-4
4 Solution 5
5 Discussion 6
6 Conclusion 7
7 Reference 8
1
INTRODUCTION
In the dynamic world of computers, the Rule of Inference serves as an intellectual
cornerstone, providing a disciplined approachtologicalreasoningthatpervadesallaspectsof
the profession. Its significance extends beyond theoretical abstraction, with substantial
applications in algorithmic decision-making, database query optimisation, andtheoverarching
objective of assuring software system accuracy and stability. As a linchpin in computational
logic, the Rule of Inference is critical in ensuring programme integrity, validating security
protocols,andcontributingtotheadvancementofartificialintelligence,cementingitspositionas
a must-have tool in the arsenal of computer professionals.
Inlogicandreasoning,the"methodofproof"isthesystematictechniqueorplanusedto
demonstrate the validity or truth of a mathematical statement or proposition. It is a wider
conceptthatincludesmanystrategiesandconceptsfordeterminingthetruthofassertionsinthe
context of formal logic. The method of proof is very important when using inference rules in
logical reasoning.
There are a few methods of proof that have been used to solve some problem
statements such as Direct Proof. This method employs a simple, step-by-step demonstration
that begins with the stated premises and proceeds directly to the conclusion. Each stage is
based on previously established logical rules or known facts. Other thanDirectProofmethod
therearealsoIndirectProofInthisstrategy,thepurposeistoproveapropositionbyassuming
itsnegationandprovingthatthisassumptionresultsinacontradiction.Ifassumingthecontrary
of the assertion causes a logical conflict, the original statement must be true.
Moreover,thethirdmethodisProofbycontradictionisapowerfulapproachusedinlogic
and mathematics toshowthetruthofaclaimbyassumingtheoppositeandprovingthatsuch
an assumption results in a logical contradiction. The last method is Proof by cases, This
strategy includes dividing the proof into separate situations, each of which is analyzed
independently. The conclusion is reached after analyzing all possible circumstances.
2
OBJECTIVES
1. T
O EVALUATE OVERALL VALIDITY
This objective is to determine whether the offered conclusion, "Ali bought Ahmad a
croissant," is logically reasonable and defensible in light oftheprovidedscenario.The
evaluation seekstoassesstheoverallvalidityoftheconclusion,whichentailsensuring
thatthereasoningandlogicalstagesusedinthesolutionaresoundandleadtoavalid
result. The procedure will most likely comprise breaking down the event into logical
propositions, creating premises, and applying inference rules to reach a logical and
justifiable conclusion.
2. T
O APPLY RULE OF INFERENCE IN REAL LIFE
Thisobjectiveisconcernedwiththepracticalapplicationofrulesofinference,whichare
a collection of logical rules or principles, to real-world situations. In the context of the
project, the goal is to apply these rules to analyze a scenario and draw reasonable
conclusionsaboutthelinksoractionsstated.Theuseofinferencerulesineverydaylife
is asystematicandstructuredapproachtoissuesolvingthatensureslogicalreasoning
is used to draw conclusions from supplied information.Itrecognisestheimportanceof
logical ideas in solving real-world situations and making sound decisions.
PROBLEM ANALYSIS
Fortheproblemstatement,wecreatedbasedontheobjectivesthatwedecidedearlier.
Our problem for this topic is shown in the scenario below.
“AhmadwilldohishomeworktodayonlyifAliboughtAhmadacroissant.Aliisnotsick
today and also it is sunny today. If it is sunny today then Ahmad will play football today.
Whenever Ahmad will play football today, Ahmad will do his homework today or Ali is sick
today.”
Conclusion: “Ali bought Ahmad a croissant”
Now it isourtasktoshoweithertheconclusionisvalidornot.Wewillshowourworks
based on the RulesofInferencesmethods.The8rulesofinferencemakingareusedtoshow
thevalidityoftheconclusionthatwejustmade.Firstweneedtobreakthescenariointosome
statements so it will be easier to implement the rules.
3
Table of Rules of Inference:-
RULES OF INFERENCE TAUTOLOGY NAME
: p
1 (p ^ (p -> q)) -> q Modus Ponens
2: p -> q
Conclusion: q
: ~q
1 (~q ^ (p -> q)) -> ~p Modus Tollens
2: p -> q
Conclusion: ~p
: p -> q
1 ((p -> q) ^ (q -> r)) -> ( p -> r) Hypothetical Syllogism
2: q -> r
Conclusion: p -> r
: p ∨ q
1 ((p ∨ q) ^ ~p) -> q Disjunctive Syllogism
2: ~p
Conclusion: q
1: p p -> (p ∨ q) Addition
Conclusion: p V q
1: p ^ q (p ^ q) -> p Simplification
Conclusion: p
: p
1 ((p) ^ (q)) -> (p ^ q) Conjunction
2: q
Conclusion: p ^ q
: p ∨ q
1 ((p ∨ q) ^ (~p ∨ r)) -> (q ∨ r) Resolution
2: ~p ∨ r
Conclusion: q ∨ r
Ourmethodiswewillchoosetheappropriaterulesfromthetabletofindtheconclusion
fromthecreatedscenario.Itmightnotbecontainsallofthembecauseourworkistoshowthe
capability of these rules in making inferences.
4
SOLUTION
First Solution Using Rules of Inferences
First we will break the scenario into 5 plain statements(without containing any negation).
: Ahmad will do his homework today.
1
2: Ali will buy Ahmad a croissant.
3: Ahmad will play football today.
4: Ali is sick today.
5: It is sunny today.
Next we turn these statements into propositions so it is easier to apply the rules.
: Ahmad will do his homework today.
P
Q: Ali will buy Ahmad a croissant.
R: Ahmad will play football today.
S: Ali is sick today.
T: It is sunny today.
ow create some premises based on the scenario using the propositions we create
N
before.
1: P -> Q
P
P2: ~S ^ T
P3: T -> R
P4: R -> (P ∨ S)
Conclusion: Q
Lastly, we will apply the rules step by step.
1:
P -> Q
P
P2: ~S ^ T
P3: T -> R
P4: R -> (P ∨ S)
5: T -> (P ∨ S) ( Resolution: P3, P4)
6: T (Simplification: P2)
7: (P ∨ S) (Modus Ponens: 5, 6)
8: ~S (Simplification: P2)
9: P (Disjunctive Syllogism: 7, 8)
10: Q (Modus Ponens: P1, 9)
Conclusion: Q, Ali bought Ahmad a croissant
Thus it is proven that the conclusion is valid.
5
Second Solution Using Methods of Proof
In this second solution we try to solve the problem by using Methods of Proof. The
conclusionfromtheearlierproblemstatementwillonlybetrueifallthepremisesistrue.Wewil
be using 1 from the 4 methods in the topic to show if those 4 premises are true.
Direct Proof
Byreferringtopremise1,AliwillboughtAhmadacroissantinaconditionthatAhmaddo
ishomeworktoday.ThispremisecanonlybetrueifAlireallydoesboughtAhmadacroissant
h
but we dont know if Ahmad really do his homework.
ow if look at premise2,Aliisnotsicktodayanditissunnytoday.Aliisnotsick,that
N
meansAlihaveaconditiontogooutshoppingtobuyacroissantandsinceitissunnyitsnever
becomes a problem for him unless Ali is sick or it is a bad weather.
Inpremise3,IfitissunnytodaythenAhmadwillplayfootballtoday.Sinceweconfirmed
itinpremise2thatitisasunnyday,thepremisecanonlybetrueifAhmadplayfootballonthat
day. This means Ahmad play football on that day is true.
owinpremise4,ifAhmadplayfootballtodaythenAliissicktodayorAhmadwilldohis
N
homework today. From premise 2 and premise 3 earlier since Ali isnotsickandAhmadplay
football on that day thus we can say that Ahmad will do his homework today is true.
owwelookingbackatpremise1,WedontknoweitherAliboughtAhmadacroissantor
N
not earlier but from premise4weconfirmedthatAhmadwilldohishomeworktoday.Sinceall
thepremisesneedtobetruethuswecansaythattheconclusionAliboughtAhmadacroissant
is true.
Comparison
omparing these 2methods,wecansaythatbyusingrulesofinferenceisbetterthan
C
usingmethodsofproofsincethe8rulesthatprovidedsimplifiedtheproblemstatementbutnot
formethodsofproofsincethesolutionprocessneedstobeinamoreabstracticalway.Methods
of proof gives theexplanationonwhythestatementistruebutrulesofinferenceprovidedthe
mathematical proof so that it is easier to understand.
6
DISCUSSION
Theobjectiveoftheprojectistoevaluatetheoverallvalidityoftheconclusion"Alibought
Ahmadacroissant"basedonagivenscenariousingtherulesofinference.Thechosenmethod,
whichinvolvesbreakingthescenariointoplainstatements,turningintopropositions,creatinga
premise using the proposition, and then applying the rules of inference, is a systematic and
effective method for solving this type of problem.
Our main findingsindicatethattheconclusionisvalid,asdemonstratedinthesolution,
the provided solution successfully solves the complex scenario using the table of rules of
inference such as Modus Ponens, Disjunctive Syllogism, Simplification, and Resolution. The
proper steps instructed inthesolutionpresentaclearandstrongjustificationforthevalidityof
the conclusion.
Despite the fact thatthevalidityoftheconclusionistrue,it'simportanttoacknowledge
certain limitations of the proposed solution and method to be applied for solving real world
problems. One of the limitations is, the scenario's complexity may cause uncertainty in the
solution especially in real world problems, and the chosen rules of inference may not be
all-inclusiveineveryscenario.Thesolutionassumesadirectandstraightforwardinterpretation
of the problem statements, which may not always be the case in more complex scenarios.
To improve the reliability of the solution, it would be beneficial to explore different
methods and consider more rules of inference to ensure a more thorough analysis. Further,
addressing potential uncertainty in the scenario by providing more specific information or
refiningthestatementscouldimprovetheoverallreliabilityofthesolution.Additionally,including
adiscussiononthesensitivityofthesolutiontovariationsinthescenariocouldfurtherimprove
the analysis.
7
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Rule of Inference emerges as a pivotal intellectual tool in the
ever-evolving realm of computer science. Its practical applications, ranging from algorithmic
decision-making to database optimization, underscore its relevance in ensuring the accuracy
and stability of software systems. Positioned at the core of computational logic, the Rule of
Inference plays a critical role in upholding program integrity, validatingsecurityprotocols,and
contributing to advancements in artificial intelligence, solidifyingitsindispensablestatusinthe
toolkit of computer professionals.
Delvingintologicalreasoning,the"methodofproof"emergesasasystematicanddiversesetof
strategies for establishing the validity or truth of mathematical statements. The Direct Proof
method provides a straightforward, step-by-step demonstration based on established logical
rulesorknownfacts.Contrastingly,theIndirectProofmethodreliesonassumingthenegationof
a proposition and proving that this assumption leads to a contradiction, affirming the original
statement's truth.
The arsenal of proof methods expands further withProofbyContradiction,apotentapproach
that demonstrates the truth of a claim by assuming its opposite and revealing a logical
contradiction. Lastly, Proof by Cases involves breaking down a proof intoseparatesituations,
analyzing each independently to arrive at a conclusion after considering all possible
circumstances. These methods collectively form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating the
intricacies of logical reasoning in the dynamic landscape of computational sciences.
8
REFERENCES
.Calcworkshop.
1 (n.d.). Rules of Inference. Retrieved from
https://calcworkshop.com/logic/rules-inference/#:~:text=The%20rules%20of%20inference%20(a
lso,noted%20by%20Monroe%20Community%20College.
. Monroe Community College. (n.d.). Arguments and Rules of Inference. In Discrete Math
2
(MTH 220). LibreTexts. Retrieved from
https://math.libretexts.org/Courses/Monroe_Community_College/MTH_220_Discrete_Math/2%3
A_Logic/2.6_Arguments_and_Rules_of_Inference#:~:text=We%20test%20an%20argument%20
by,where%20all%20premises%20are%20true.
9
Project Rubric (Presentation) – CSC 510 (Discrete Structure)
No. Assessment Excellent (4-5) Good (3) Satisfactory (2) Poor (1)
Criteria
1 epth of
D lear and easily
C ertain areas show
C ome understanding
S how a surface
S
knowledge understood. Shows depth of thought. of subject but little knowledge only.
depth of thought. Mostly clear but with depth. Somewhat Unclear and
Able to answer little confusion in the clear and some confusing. Leaves the
questions in an presentation. Able to confusion in the listener a little lost.
intelligent manner answer question presentation. Able to Unable to respond to
answer some questions
questions
2 verall
O resenter has a
P resenter provides
P resenter provides
P here is no
T
organization of smooth presentation explanations and / or explanations and / or presentation flow.
project presentation flow and provides elaboration, use time insufficient Goes over time limit
good explanations wisely elaboration and use of or does not fully
and / or elaboration, time cover the topics
use time wisely
3 se variety of
U resentation
P ost material/media
M ome materials/media
S aterial/media are
M
presentation material/media are of are of high quality. are of high quality inadequate or barely
materials high quality and Some variety in with some minimum
useful material used questionable sources presentation materials
or too small to see
4 Delivery skills resenter speaks
P resenter speaks
P resenter’s voice is
P resenter mumbles,
P
clearly and loud clearly and loud relatively clear, but mispronounces terms,
enough for all in the enough to be heard too low to be heard and makes serious
audience to hear, by most in the by those in the back and persistent
makes no audience, makes of the room. Presenter grammatical errors
grammatical errors, relatively few makes some throughout the
pronounces all terms grammatical errors, grammatical errors, presentation.
correctly and and pronounces most and mispronounces Presenter speak too
precisely. Excellent terms correctly. Good some terms. Some quietly to be heard by
eye contact eye contact eye contact. many in the audience.
Very poor eye contact
Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Total
10
/20
·
Project Rubric (Report & Product) – CSC 510 (Discrete Structure)
No. Assessment Excellent (4-5) Good (3) Satisfactory (2) Poor (1)
Criteria
1 Report format xcellent report
E ood report
G ormatting with
F No formatting
formatting. formatting. unorganized
Follow the content.
documentation
format with an ajor
M
appropriate inor
M grammatical
arrangement and grammatical error.
fulfilled error.
requirements.
2 Introduction ell-define
W lear
C dequate
A nclear
U
introduction on introduction on introduction on introduction on
the chosen topic the chosen topic the chosen topic the chosen topic
and its and its and motivation of
importance in importance in the project
computing. computing
nrelated
U
project
Motivation of the motivation is
Motivation of the Motivation of the project are stated stated
project are well project are stated
stated
11
3 Objective ell defined
W learly defined
C eneral
G nrelated
U
project project objectives statement of objectives
objectives, project objectives
measurable and
achievable
4 roblem
P ell-defined
W lear project
C dequate project
A nclear problem
U
analysis project problem problem statement and statement.
statement statement scope.
I nclude an I nclude an o analysis of
N
analysis of analysis of methods o analysis of
N
methods methods available for methods
available for available for problem solving. available for
problem solving problem solving problem solving.
5 Solution ractical and
P lear solution
C I ncomplete o work
N
correct work using formal solution using solution
solution using proof of validity. formal proof of provided
formal proof of validity.
validity.
rovide more
P rovide more
P
than ONE (1) than ONE (1)
solution where solution where
applicable applicable
6 Discussion igh critical
H lear critical
C dequate critical
A o critical
N
analysis of the analysis of the analysis of the analysis of the
result. result. result. result.
Future
r ecommendations R ecommendation ome
S nrelated
U
to real life s for future work recommendations discussion
situation are well are stated for future work
stated. are stated
12
7 Conclusion onclusion
C lear conclusion
C onclusion
C o conclusion or
N
includes the of the projects includes the unrelated
findings and objectives findings, lesson conclusion
Conclusion learned from the
includes the project.
findings, lesson
learned from the
project.
8 References wo or more
T wo credible
T eferences
R No reference
credible references written included but with
references in APA styles incorrect style
written in APA
styles
9 Originality I ntroduces highly isplays good
D emonstrates
D ails to
F
innovative ideas creativity, some creativity introduce any
or approaches introducing but with limited original ideas,
that significantly unique elements original resulting in a
elevate the that contribute to elements, project that lacks
project's the overall resulting in a distinctiveness
uniqueness and originality of the somewhat typical and innovation.
impact. project approach
Demonstrates
e xceptional
creativity in the
problem
statement.
·
Criter Criter Criter Criter Criter Criter Criter Criter Criter Punctual Total
ia 1 ia 2 ia 3 ia 4 ia 5 ia 6 ia 7 ia 8 ia 9 ity
/5 /50
13
14
You might also like
- VTU Exam Question Paper With Solution of 18CS753 Introduction To Artificial Intelligence March-2022-Dr. Srividya R100% (1)VTU Exam Question Paper With Solution of 18CS753 Introduction To Artificial Intelligence March-2022-Dr. Srividya R18 pages
- Knowledge Reasoning & Inference: Nur Azzah Abu BakarNo ratings yetKnowledge Reasoning & Inference: Nur Azzah Abu Bakar37 pages
- Artificial Intelligence PPT-7 - Inference in FOLNo ratings yetArtificial Intelligence PPT-7 - Inference in FOL46 pages
- Chapter06-Agents That Reason Logically-AI TTNT NNTuNo ratings yetChapter06-Agents That Reason Logically-AI TTNT NNTu78 pages
- Assignment 02: Adversarial Search (Game Playing)No ratings yetAssignment 02: Adversarial Search (Game Playing)38 pages
- Sri Krishna Arts and Science Computer Technology: Course Coordinator Dr. V. S. Anita Sofia Prof. & HeadNo ratings yetSri Krishna Arts and Science Computer Technology: Course Coordinator Dr. V. S. Anita Sofia Prof. & Head70 pages
- Endsem Imp Artificial Intelligence Unit - 5No ratings yetEndsem Imp Artificial Intelligence Unit - 519 pages
- Artificial Intelligence Course Code ECE4 PDFNo ratings yetArtificial Intelligence Course Code ECE4 PDF72 pages
- The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Kenneth H. Rosen 7 EditionNo ratings yetThe Foundations: Logic and Proofs Kenneth H. Rosen 7 Edition35 pages
- PESIT Bangalore South Campus: Internal Assessment Test Ii-SolutionNo ratings yetPESIT Bangalore South Campus: Internal Assessment Test Ii-Solution8 pages
- Computer-Aided Program Design: Spring 2015, Rice University Unit 1No ratings yetComputer-Aided Program Design: Spring 2015, Rice University Unit 141 pages
- Artificial Intelligence - Computer Engineering Que.No ratings yetArtificial Intelligence - Computer Engineering Que.13 pages
- Discrete Structures: Rules of InferenceNo ratings yetDiscrete Structures: Rules of Inference53 pages
- Chapter Knowlege Representation, Inference and ReasoningNo ratings yetChapter Knowlege Representation, Inference and Reasoning21 pages
- Propositional Logic or How To Reason Correctly: Chapter 8 (New Edition) Chapter 7 (Old Edition)No ratings yetPropositional Logic or How To Reason Correctly: Chapter 8 (New Edition) Chapter 7 (Old Edition)28 pages
- 10-M U1-1-M - EM - SivAmoorthy VPM - Kalviexpress100% (1)10-M U1-1-M - EM - SivAmoorthy VPM - Kalviexpress1 page
- Mathematical Foundations of Computing - Preliminary Course NotesNo ratings yetMathematical Foundations of Computing - Preliminary Course Notes347 pages
- Boolean Algebra Questions and Answers - SanfoundryNo ratings yetBoolean Algebra Questions and Answers - Sanfoundry8 pages
- Quiz 4 PHIL 120 98A Introduction To Critical Thinking PDFNo ratings yetQuiz 4 PHIL 120 98A Introduction To Critical Thinking PDF17 pages
- PDF Logical Studies First Edition. Edition Von Wright Download100% (1)PDF Logical Studies First Edition. Edition Von Wright Download55 pages
- Induction Over Haskell Data Structures (Full Notes)No ratings yetInduction Over Haskell Data Structures (Full Notes)23 pages
- U24EC202 BEEE QB UNIT 4 Digital ElectronicsNo ratings yetU24EC202 BEEE QB UNIT 4 Digital Electronics3 pages
- Borlasa - Justin Kean Hakeem L. - Lesson 9No ratings yetBorlasa - Justin Kean Hakeem L. - Lesson 95 pages
