SA RESOLUTION 145

5.4.1/ Conversion to Clause Form

Suppose we know that allRomans who know Marcus either hate Caesar or think that
anyone who hates anyone is crazy, We could represent that in the following wff:
Vr: (Roman(x) A know(x. Marcus)) ’
[hate(x. Caesar) V (v: 32: hate(y. z) ’ thinkcrazy(x. y))|
To use this formula in a proof requires a complex matching
matched one piece of it, such as thinkerazyx. v), it is necessaryprocesSs. Then, having
to do the right thing
with the rest of the formula including the pieces inwhich the matched part is
embedded
and those in which it is not. If the formula were in a simpler form, this process
be much easier. The formula would be easier to would
work with if
" It were flatter, i.e., there was less
embedding of components.
" The quantifiers were separated from the rest of the formula so that
they did not
need to be considered.
Conjunctive normal form (Davis and Putnam, 1960] has both of these properties.
For example, the formula given above for the feelings of Romans who know Marcus
would be represented in conjunctive noFmal form as
¬Roman(x) V ¬know(x,Marcus) V
hate(x,Caesar) V¬hate(y, z) Vthinkcrazy(x, z)
Since there exists an algorithm for converting any wff into conjunctive normal form,
we lose no generality if we employ a proof procedure (such as resolution) that operates
only on wff's in this form. In fact, for resolution to work, we need to go one step further.
We need to reduce a set of wff's to a set of clauses, where a clause is defined to be a wff
in conjunctive normal form but with no instances of the connector A. We can do this
by first converting each wff into conjunctive normal form and then breaking apart each
such expression into clauses, one for each conjunct. All theconjuncts will be considered
to be conjoined together as the proof procedure operates. To convert a wff into clause
form, perform the following sequence of steps

Algorithm: Convert to Clause Form

A. Eliminate -’, using the fact that a -’ bis equivalentto naVb. Performing this
transformation on the wff given above yields
x:-[Roman(r) Aknow(x, Marcus)] V
[hatex, Caesar) V(Vy:-(3z: hate(y, z))Vthinkcrazy(x., y)]
2. Reduce the scope of each ¬ to a single term, using the fact that ¬(p) = p,
deMorgan's laws [which say that -(a Ab) =naVb and ¬a Vb)=aA bl.
and the standard correspondences betweenquantifiers [-Vx : P) = r :-P)
and -r : P) = Vr:-P()). Performing this transfornation on the wff from
step 1yields
r:(-Romanx) V know(x, Marcus)]V
[hatelx, Caesar) v (Yy: V2:hately.) Vthinkcrazy(x. y))
 PREDICATE LOGIC
USING
'CHAPTER5.
146
binds a unique variable, Since
cach quantifiercannot affect the
truth value of the
3. Standardize variables so that
this process
variables are just dummy names,
wff. For example. the formula
t : P) v t )
wouldbe converted to
V:P) Vt:Qv)
This stepis in preparation for the next. relative order.
formula without changing their
4. Move all quantifierstotthe left of the names. Performing this
conflict among variable
This is possible since there is no
operation on the formula of step 2. we get
r:y:t:-Romanr) V know(a. Marcus)]V
[hate(x. Caesar)V(-hate(y. z) Vthinkcrazy(x.y))! consists
the formula is in what is known as prenex normal form. It
ATthIS point,
pref of quantifiers followed by a natrix, which is quantifier-free.
o a
S Eliminate existential quantifiers. A formula that
contains an existentially quan
be substituted for the variable
tihed variable asserts that there is a value that can substituting for
that makes the formula true. We can eliminate the quantifier byvalue. Since we
the variable a reference to a function that produces the desired
function
do not necessarily knowhow toproduce the value, we must create a new
name for every such replacement. We make no assertions about these functions
except that they must exist. So, for example, the formula
By :President(y)
can be transformed into the formula
President(S1)
where Sl is a function with no arguments that somehow produces a value that
satisfies President.
If existential quantifiers occur within the scope of universal quantifiers, then the
value that satisfies the predicate may depend on the values of the universally
quantified variables. For example, in the formula
Vr:By:father-ofy. x)
the value of y that satisfies father-of depends on the
we must generate functions with the particular value of x. Thus
same number of arguments as the number
of universal quantifiers in whose scope
would be transformed into
the expression occurs. So this example
Vx: father-ofS2(1), x)
These generated functions are called Skolem
arguments are called Skolem constants. functions. Sometimes ones with no
6. Drop the prefix. Atthis point, all
the prefix can just be dropped andremaining
any proofvariables are weuniversally quantified, so
procedure use can assume
simply
54. RESOLUTION
147

.hat any variable it sees is universally

quantified. Now the formula prodyced in
step 4 appears as
|-Roman() V -know(x. MarcUs)]V
|hate(x. Caesar) V(¬hate(y, z) Vthinkerazyx, y)l
7 Convert the matrix into a
conjuncton of disjuncts. In the case of our example
since there are no and's, it is only
necessary to exploit the associative property of
orlie..a V(bV) =(a Vb) \Ve] and s1mply remove the parentheses, giving
-Roman(.) V ¬know(r. Marcus) V
hate(x.Caesar) V¬lhate(y. z) Vthinkcrazyx, v)
However, it is also frequently necessary to exploit the
(a Ab) Vc= (aVc) A(bV c)). For example, distributive property [i.e.,
the formula
(winter Awearingboots) V(sunmmer Awearingsandals)
becomes, after one application of the rule
[winter V(summer Awearingsandals)]
A[wearingboots V(summer Awearingsandals)]
and then, after a second application, required since
there are still conjuncts joined
by OR's,
(winter Vsummer) A
(winter Vwearingsandals) A
(wearingboots Vsummer) ^
(wearingboots Vwearingsandals)
8. Create a separate clause corresponding to each
conjunct. In order for a wff to be
true, all the clauses that are generated from it must be
true. If we are going to be
working with several wff's, all the clauses generated by each of them can
combined to represent the same set of facts as were represented by the now be
wff's. original
9. Standardize apart the variables in the set of clauses
generated in step 8. By this
we mean rename the variables so that no two clauses make
reference to the same
variable. In making this transformation, we rely on the fact that
(x: P(r) A Q)) =x: P()A r: Qu)
Thus since each clause is a separate conjunct and since all the
variables are
universally quantified, there need be no relationshipbetween the variables of two
clauses, even if they were generated from the same wf.
Performing this final step of standardization is important because during the resolu
tion procedure it is sometimes necessary to instantiate a universally quantified variable
(1.e., substitute for it a particular value). But, in general, we want to keep clauses in
heir most general form as long as possible. So when a variable is instantiated, we want
to know the minimum number of substitutions that must be made to
preserve the trun
value of the system.
Aner applying this entire procedure to aset of wff's, we will have aset of clauses,
Cach of which is a disjunction of literals. These clauses can now be exploited by the
resolution procedure to generate proofs.