CS344: Introduction to Artificial

Intelligence
(associated lab: CS386)

Pushpak Bhattacharyya
CSE Dept.,
IIT Bombay
Lecture–1 to 6: Introduction; Fuzzy sets
and logic; inverted pendulum
7th, 8th, 9th 14th, 15th , 21st Jan, 2013
 Basic Facts
 Faculty instructor: Dr. Pushpak Bhattacharyya
(www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~pb)
 TAship: Kashyap, Bibek, Samiulla, Lahari, Jayaprakash, Nikhil,
Kritika and Shuvam
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
 Course home page
 www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~cs344-2013 (will be up soon)

 Venue: LCC 02, opp KR bldg

 1 hour lectures 3 times a week: Mon-10.30, Tue-11.30, Thu-
8.30 (slot 2)
Perspective
AI Perspective (post-web)

Robotics

NLP

Search,
Expert Reasoning, IR
Systems Learning
Planning

Computer
Vision
From Wikipedia
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence of machines and the branch of
computer science that aims to create it. Textbooks define the field as "the study
and design of intelligent agents"[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that
perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of
success.[2] John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1956,[3] defines it as "the
science and engineering of making intelligent machines."[4]
The field was founded on the claim that a central property of humans, intelligence—
the sapience of Homo sapiens—can be so precisely described that it can be
simulated by a machine.[5] This raises philosophical issues about the nature of
the mind and limits of scientific hubris, issues which have been addressed by
myth, fiction and philosophy since antiquity.[6] Artificial intelligence has been the
subject of optimism,[7] but has also suffered setbacks[8] and, today, has become
an essential part of the technology industry, providing the heavy lifting for many
of the most difficult problems in computer science.[9]
AI research is highly technical and specialized, deeply divided into subfields that
often fail to communicate with each other.[10] Subfields have grown up around
particular institutions, the work of individual researchers, the solution of specific
problems, longstanding differences of opinion about how AI should be done and
the application of widely differing tools. The central problems of AI include such
traits as reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception
and the ability to move and manipulate objects.[11] General intelligence (or
"strong AI") is still a long-term goal of (some) research.[12]
 Topics to be covered (1/2)
 Search
 General Graph Search, A*, Admissibility, Monotonicity
 Iterative Deepening, α-β pruning, Application in game playing
 Logic
 Formal System, axioms, inference rules, completeness, soundness and
consistency
 Propositional Calculus, Predicate Calculus, Fuzzy Logic, Description
Logic, Web Ontology Language
 Knowledge Representation
 Semantic Net, Frame, Script, Conceptual Dependency
 Machine Learning
 Decision Trees, Neural Networks, Support Vector Machines, Self
Organization or Unsupervised Learning
 Topics to be covered (2/2)
 Evolutionary Computation
 Genetic Algorithm, Swarm Intelligence
 Probabilistic Methods
 Hidden Markov Model, Maximum Entropy Markov Model,
Conditional Random Field
 IR and AI
 Modeling User Intention, Ranking of Documents, Query Expansion,
Personalization, User Click Study
 Planning
 Deterministic Planning, Stochastic Methods
 Man and Machine
 Natural Language Processing, Computer Vision, Expert Systems
 Philosophical Issues
 Is AI possible, Cognition, AI and Rationality, Computability and AI,
Creativity
Foundational Points
 Church Turing Hypothesis
 Anything that is computable is computable
by a Turing Machine
 Conversely, the set of functions computed
by a Turing Machine is the set of ALL and
ONLY computable functions
Turing Machine
Finite State Head (CPU)

Infinite Tape (Memory)

Foundational Points (contd)

 Physical Symbol System Hypothesis

(Newel and Simon)
 For Intelligence to emerge it is enough to
manipulate symbols
Foundational Points (contd)

 Society of Mind (Marvin Minsky)

 Intelligence emerges from the interaction
of very simple information processing units
 Whole is larger than the sum of parts!
Foundational Points (contd)

 Limits to computability
 Halting problem: It is impossible to
construct a Universal Turing Machine that
given any given pair <M, I> of Turing
Machine M and input I, will decide if M
halts on I
 What this has to do with intelligent
computation? Think!
Foundational Points (contd)

 Limits to Automation
 Godel Theorem: A “sufficiently powerful”
formal system cannot be BOTH complete
and consistent
 “Sufficiently powerful”: at least as powerful
as to be able to capture Peano’s Arithmetic
 Sets limits to automation of reasoning
Foundational Points (contd)

 Limits in terms of time and Space

 NP-complete and NP-hard problems: Time
for computation becomes extremely large
as the length of input increases
 PSPACE complete: Space requirement
becomes extremely large
 Sets limits in terms of resources
Two broad divisions of
Theoretical CS
 Theory A
 Algorithms and Complexity
 Theory B
 Formal Systems and Logic
AI as the forcing function
 Time sharing system in OS
 Machine giving the illusion of attending
simultaneously with several people
 Compilers
 Raising the level of the machine for better
man machine interface
 Arose from Natural Language Processing
(NLP)
 NLP in turn called the forcing function for AI
 Allied Disciplines
Philosophy Knowledge Rep., Logic, Foundation of
AI (is AI possible?)
Maths Search, Analysis of search algos, logic
Economics Expert Systems, Decision Theory,
Principles of Rational Behavior
Psychology Behavioristic insights into AI programs
Brain Science Learning, Neural Nets
Physics Learning, Information Theory & AI,
Entropy, Robotics
Computer Sc. & Engg. Systems for AI
Goal of Teaching the course
 Concept building: firm grip on
foundations, clear ideas
 Coverage: grasp of good amount of
material, advances
 Inspiration: get the spirit of AI,
motivation to take up further work
 Resources
 Main Text:
 Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by Russell & Norvik,
Pearson, 2003.
 Other Main References:
 Principles of AI - Nilsson
 AI - Rich & Knight
 Knowledge Based Systems – Mark Stefik
 Journals
 AI, AI Magazine, IEEE Expert,
 Area Specific Journals e.g, Computational Linguistics
 Conferences
 IJCAI, AAAI

Positively attend lectures!

Grading
 Midsem
 Endsem
 Paper reading (possibly seminar)
 Quizzes
Modeling Human Reasoning

Fuzzy Logic
 Fuzzy Logic tries to capture the
human ability of reasoning with
imprecise information

 Works with imprecise statements such as:

In a process control situation, “If the
temperature is moderate and the pressure is
high, then turn the knob slightly right”
 The rules have “Linguistic Variables”, typically
adjectives qualified by adverbs (adverbs are
hedges).
Alternatives to fuzzy logic model
human reasoning (1/2)
 Non-numerical
 Non monotonic Logic
 Negation by failure (“innocent unless proven
guilty”)
 Abduction (PQ AND Q gives P)

 Modal Logic
 New operators beyond AND, OR, IMPLIES,
Quantification etc.

 Naïve Physics
Abduction Example
 If
there is rain (P)
 Then
there will be no picnic (Q)
 Abductive reasoning:
Observation: There was no picnic(Q)
Conclude : There was rain(P); in absence
of any other evidence
Alternatives to fuzzy logic model
human reasoning (2/2)
 Numerical
 Fuzzy Logic
 Probability Theory
 Bayesian Decision Theory

 Possibility Theory
 Uncertainty Factor based on

Dempster Shafer Evidence

Theory (e.g. yellow_eyesjaundice; 0.3)
 Linguistic Variables
 Fuzzy sets are named
by Linguistic Variables
(typically adjectives). µtall(h)
 Underlying the LV is a
numerical quantity 1
E.g. For ‘tall’ (LV),
‘height’ is numerical
quantity.
0.4
 Profile of a LV is the 4.5
plot shown in the figure
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
shown alongside.
height h
 Example Profiles

µrich(w) µpoor(w)

wealth w wealth w
 Example Profiles

µA (x) µA (x)

x x

Profile representing Profile representing

moderate (e.g. moderately rich) extreme
 Concept of Hedge
 Hedge is an intensifier
 Example:

LV = tall, LV1 = very

tall, LV2 = somewhat somewhat tall tall
tall 1

 ‘very’ operation:
µtall(h) very tall
µvery tall(x) = µ2tall(x)
 ‘somewhat’ operation:

µsomewhat tall(x) = √(µtall(x))

0
h
 An Example
Controlling an inverted pendulum:

.
θ   d / dt = angular velocity

Motor i=current
The goal: To keep the pendulum in vertical position (θ=0)
in dynamic equilibrium. Whenever the pendulum departs
from vertical, a torque is produced by sending a current ‘i’

Controlling factors for appropriate current

.
Angle θ, Angular velocity θ
Some intuitive rules
.
If θ is +ve small and θ is –ve small
then current is zero
.
If θ is +ve small and θ is +ve small
then current is –ve medium
Control Matrix

.θ
-ve -ve +ve +ve
med Zero
θ small small med

-ve
med

-ve +ve +ve Region of

small Zero
med small interest

Zero +ve -ve

Zero
small small

+ve Zero -ve -ve

small small med

+ve
med
Each cell is a rule of the form
.
If θ is <> and θ is <>
then i is <>
4 “Centre rules”
.
1. if θ = = Zero and θ = = Zero then i = Zero
.
2. if θ is +ve small and θ = = Zero then i is –ve small
.
3. if θ is –ve small and θ = = Zero then i is +ve small
.
4. if θ = = Zero and θ is +ve small then i is –ve small
.
5. if θ = = Zero and θ is –ve small then i is +ve small
Linguistic variables
1. Zero
2. +ve small
3. -ve small

Profiles

zero
1
-ve small +ve small

-ε3 -ε2 ε2 ε3
-ε +ε .
Quantity (θ, θ , i)
Inference procedure
.
1. Read actual numerical values of θ and θ
2. Get the corresponding µ values µZero, µ(+ve small),
µ(-ve small). This is called FUZZIFICATION
3. For different rules, get the fuzzy I-values from
the R.H.S of the rules.
4. “Collate” by some method and get ONE current
value. This is called DEFUZZIFICATION
5. Result is one numerical value of ‘i’.
 Rules Involved

if θ is Zero and dθ/dt is Zero then i is Zero

if θ is Zero and dθ/dt is +ve small then i is –ve small
if θ is +ve small and dθ/dt is Zero then i is –ve small
if θ +ve small and dθ/dt is +ve small then i is -ve medium

zero
1
-ve small +ve small

-ε3 -ε2 ε2 ε3
-ε +ε .
Quantity (θ, θ , i)
 Fuzzification

Suppose θ is 1 radian and dθ/dt is 1 rad/sec

µzero(θ =1)=0.8 (say)
Μ+ve-small(θ =1)=0.4 (say)
µzero(dθ/dt =1)=0.3 (say)
µ+ve-small(dθ/dt =1)=0.7 (say)

zero
1
-ve small +ve small

1 rad/sec
-ε3 -ε2 ε2 ε3
-ε +ε .
1rad Quantity (θ, θ , i)
 Fuzzification
Suppose θ is 1 radian and dθ/dt is 1 rad/sec
µzero(θ =1)=0.8 (say)
µ +ve-small(θ =1)=0.4 (say)
µzero(dθ/dt =1)=0.3 (say)
µ+ve-small(dθ/dt =1)=0.7 (say)

if θ is Zero and dθ/dt is Zero then i is Zero

min(0.8, 0.3)=0.3
hence µzero(i)=0.3
if θ is Zero and dθ/dt is +ve small then i is –ve small
min(0.8, 0.7)=0.7
hence µ-ve-small(i)=0.7
if θ is +ve small and dθ/dt is Zero then i is –ve small
min(0.4, 0.3)=0.3
hence µ-ve-small(i)=0.3
if θ +ve small and dθ/dt is +ve small then i is -ve medium
min(0.4, 0.7)=0.4
hence µ-ve-medium(i)=0.4
 Finding i

-ve medium -ve small zero

1
-ve small
0.7

0.4

-4.1 -ε3 -ε2

-2.5 -ε +ε
0.3
Possible candidates:
i=0.5 and -0.5 from the “zero” profile and µ=0.3
i=-0.1 and -2.5 from the “-ve-small” profile and µ=0.3
i=-1.7 and -4.1 from the “-ve-small” profile and µ=0.3
 Defuzzification: Finding i
by the centroid method

Required i value
Centroid of three
trapezoids
-ve medium
-ve small
zero
-4.1
-2.5 -ε +ε
Possible candidates:
i is the x-coord of the centroid of the areas given by the
blue trapezium, the green trapeziums and the black trapezium
Fuzzy Sets
Theory of Fuzzy Sets

 Intimate connection between logic and set theory.

 Given any set ‘S’ and an element ‘e’, there is a very
natural predicate, µs(e) called as the belongingness
predicate.
 The predicate is such that,
µs(e) = 1, iff e ∈ S
= 0, otherwise
 For example, S = {1, 2, 3, 4}, µs(1) = 1 and µs(5) =
0
 A predicate P(x) also defines a set naturally.
S = {x | P(x) is true}
For example, even(x) defines S = {x | x is even}
Fuzzy Set Theory (contd.)
 Fuzzy set theory starts by questioning the fundamental
assumptions of set theory viz., the belongingness
predicate, µ, value is 0 or 1.
 Instead in Fuzzy theory it is assumed that,
µs(e) = [0, 1]
 Fuzzy set theory is a generalization of classical set
theory aka called Crisp Set Theory.
 In real life, belongingness is a fuzzy concept.
Example: Let, T = “tallness”
µT (height=6.0ft ) = 1.0
µT (height=3.5ft) = 0.2
An individual with height 3.5ft is “tall” with a degree
0.2
Representation of Fuzzy sets
Let U = {x1,x2,…..,xn}
|U| = n
The various sets composed of elements from U are presented
as points on and inside the n-dimensional hypercube. The crisp
sets are the corners of the hypercube. µA(x1)=0.3
µA(x2)=0.4
(0,1) (1,1)
x2 (x1,x2)
U={x1,x2}
x2 A(0.3,0.4)

(0,0) (1,0)

Φ x1 x1

A fuzzy set A is represented by a point in the n-dimensional

space as the point {µA(x1), µA(x2),……µA(xn)}
 Degree of fuzziness
The centre of the hypercube is the most fuzzy
set. Fuzziness decreases as one nears the
corners
Measure of fuzziness
Called the entropy of a fuzzy set
Fuzzy set Farthest corner

E ( S )  d ( S , nearest ) / d ( S , farthest )

Entropy Nearest corner

 (0,1) (1,1)

x2

A (0.5,0.5)

d(A, nearest)

(0,0) (1,0)
x1

d(A, farthest)
Definition
Distance between two fuzzy sets
n
d ( S1 , S 2 )   |  s1 ( xi )  s2 ( xi ) |
i 1

L1 - norm

Let C = fuzzy set represented by the centre point

d(c,nearest) = |0.5-1.0| + |0.5 – 0.0|
=1
= d(C,farthest)
=> E(C) = 1
Definition
Cardinality of a fuzzy set
n
m( s )   s ( xi ) (generalization of cardinality of
i 1 classical sets)

Union, Intersection, complementation, subset hood

 s1  s2 ( x)  max( s1 ( x),  s2 ( x)), x  U

 s1  s2 ( x)  min( s1 ( x),  s2 ( x)), x  U

 s c ( x)  1   s ( x)
Example of Operations on
Fuzzy Set
 Let us define the following:
 Universe U={X1 ,X2 ,X3}
 Fuzzy sets
 A={0.2/X1 , 0.7/X2 , 0.6/X3} and
 B={0.7/X1 ,0.3/X2 ,0.5/X3}
Then Cardinality of A and B are computed as follows:
Cardinality of A=|A|=0.2+0.7+0.6=1.5
Cardinality of B=|B|=0.7+0.3+0.5=1.5

While distance between A and B

d(A,B)=|0.2-0.7)+|0.7-0.3|+|0.6-0.5|=1.0
What does the cardinality of a fuzzy set mean? In crisp sets it
means the number of elements in the set.
Example of Operations on Fuzzy Set
(cntd.)
Universe U={X1 ,X2 ,X3}
Fuzzy sets A={0.2/X1 ,0.7/X2 ,0.6/X3} and B={0.7/X1 ,0.3/X2
,0.5/X3}

A U B= {0.7/X1, 0.7/X2, 0.6/X3}

A ∩ B= {0.2/X1, 0.3/X2, 0.5/X3}

Ac = {0.8/X1, 0.3/X2, 0.4/X3}

Laws of Set Theory
• The laws of Crisp set theory also holds for fuzzy set
theory (verify them)
• These laws are listed below:
– Commutativity: AUB=BUA
– Associativity: A U ( B U C )=( A U B ) U C
– Distributivity: A U ( B ∩ C )=( A ∩ C ) U ( B ∩ C)
A ∩ ( B U C)=( A U C) ∩( B U C)
– De Morgan’s Law: (A U B) C= AC ∩ BC
(A ∩ B) C= AC U BC
Distributivity Property Proof
 Let Universe U={x1,x2,…xn}
pi =µAU(B∩C)(xi)
=max[µA(xi), µ(B∩C)(xi)]
= max[µA(xi), min(µB(xi),µC(xi))]
qi =µ(AUB) ∩(AUC)(xi)
=min[max(µA(xi), µB(xi)), max(µA(xi), µC(xi))]
Distributivity Property Proof
 Case I: 0<µC<µB<µA<1
pi = max[µA(xi), min(µB(xi),µC(xi))]
= max[µA(xi), µC(xi)]=µA(xi)
qi =min[max(µA(xi), µB(xi)), max(µA(xi), µC(xi))]
= min[µA(xi), µA(xi)]=µA(xi)
 Case II: 0<µC<µA<µB<1
pi = max[µA(xi), min(µB(xi),µC(xi))]
= max[µA(xi), µC(xi)]=µA(xi)
qi =min[max(µA(xi), µB(xi)), max(µA(xi), µC(xi))]
= min[µB(xi), µA(xi)]=µA(xi)
Prove it for rest of the 4 cases.
Note on definition by extension and intension
S1 = {xi|xi mod 2 = 0 } – Intension
S2 = {0,2,4,6,8,10,………..} – extension
How to define subset hood?
Meaning of fuzzy subset
Suppose, following classical set theory we say
B A
if
 B ( x)   A ( x)x

Consider the n-hyperspace representation of A and B

(0,1) (1,1)

A
x2 . B1 Region where  B ( x)   A ( x)
.B2
.B3
(0,0) (1,0)
x1
This effectively means
B  P( A) CRISPLY
P(A) = Power set of A
Eg: Suppose
A = {0,1,0,1,0,1,…………….,0,1} – 104 elements
B = {0,0,0,1,0,1,……………….,0,1} – 104 elements
Isn’t B  A with a degree? (only differs in the 2nd element)
Subset operator is the “odd
man” out
 AUB, A∩B, Ac are all “Set Constructors” while
A  B is a Boolean Expression or predicate.
 According to classical logic
 In Crisp Set theory A  B is defined as
x xA  xB
 So, in fuzzy set theory A  B can be defined as
x µA(x)  µB(x)
Zadeh’s definition of subsethood goes
against the grain of fuzziness theory
 Another way of defining A  B is as follows:

x µA(x)  µB(x)

But, these two definitions imply that µP(B)(A)=1

where P(B) is the power set of B

Thus, these two definitions violate the fuzzy principle that every
belongingness except Universe is fuzzy
 Fuzzy definition of subset
Measured in terms of “fit violation”, i.e. violating the
condition  B ( x)   A ( x)
Degree of subset hood S(A,B)= 1- degree of superset

 max(0, 
x
B ( x)   A ( x))
= 1
m( B )

m(B) = cardinality of B
=   B ( x)
x
We can show that E ( A)  S ( A  Ac , A  Ac )
Exercise 1:
Show the relationship between entropy and subset hood
Exercise 2:
Prove that
S ( B, A)  m( A  B) / m( B)

Subset hood of B in A
 Fuzzy sets to fuzzy logic
Forms the foundation of fuzzy rule based system or fuzzy expert system
Expert System
Rules are of the form
If
C1  C2  ...........Cn
then
Ai
Where Cis are conditions
Eg: C1=Colour of the eye yellow
C2= has fever
C3=high bilurubin
A = hepatitis
In fuzzy logic we have fuzzy predicates
Classical logic
P(x1,x2,x3…..xn) = 0/1
Fuzzy Logic
P(x1,x2,x3…..xn) = [0,1]
Fuzzy OR
P( x)  Q( y )  max(P( x), Q( y ))
Fuzzy AND
P ( x)  Q( y )  min( P ( x), Q( y ))
Fuzzy NOT
~ P( x)  1  P( x)
 Fuzzy Implication
 Many theories have been advanced and many
expressions exist
 The most used is Lukasiewitz formula
 t(P) = truth value of a proposition/predicate. In
fuzzy logic t(P) = [0,1]
 t(P  Q ) = min[1,1 -t(P)+t(Q)]

Lukasiewitz definition of implication

Fuzzy Inferencing
 Two methods of inferencing in classical
logic
 Modus Ponens
 Given p and pq, infer q
 Modus Tolens
 Given ~q and pq, infer ~p
 How is fuzzy inferencing done?
A look at reasoning
 Deduction: p, pq|- q
 Induction: p1, p2, p3, …|- for_all p
 Abduction: q, pq|- p
 Default reasoning: Non-monotonic
reasoning: Negation by failure
 If something cannot be proven, its
negation is asserted to be true
 E.g., in Prolog
Fuzzy Modus Ponens in terms of
truth values
 Given t(p)=1 and t(pq)=1, infer t(q)=1
 In fuzzy logic,
 given t(p)>=a, 0<=a<=1

 and t(p>q)=c, 0<=c<=1

 What is t(q)

 How much of truth is transferred over the

channel
p q
 Lukasiewitz formula
for Fuzzy Implication
 t(P) = truth value of a proposition/predicate. In
fuzzy logic t(P) = [0,1]
 t(P  Q ) = min[1,1 -t(P)+t(Q)]

Lukasiewitz definition of implication

Use Lukasiewitz definition
 t(pq) = min[1,1 -t(p)+t(q)]
 We have t(p->q)=c, i.e., min[1,1 -t(p)+t(q)]=c
 Case 1:
 c=1 gives 1 -t(p)+t(q)>=1, i.e., t(q)>=a
 Otherwise, 1 -t(p)+t(q)=c, i.e., t(q)>=c+a-1
 Combining, t(q)=max(0,a+c-1)
 This is the amount of truth transferred over the
channel pq
 Two equations consistent
Sub( B, A)  1  Sup( B, A)
 max(0, 
xi U
B ( xi )   A ( xi ))
 1 where U  {x1 , x2 ,..., xn }

xi U
B ( xi )

t (  B ( xi )   A ( xi ))  min(1,1  t (  B ( xi ))  t (  A ( xi )))

 These two equations are consistent with each other

 Proof
 Let us consider two crisp sets A and B

1 U 2 U

A B
B A

3 U 4 U

A A
B B
Proof (contd…)
 Case I:
A(xi ) 1 only when B(xi ) 1 So, B (xi ) A(xi )  0
 So,
 max(0, 
xi U
B ( xi )   A ( xi ))
Sub( B, A)  1 

xi U
B ( xi )

0
 1 1
  B ( xi )
xi U
Proof (contd…)
Since  B ( xi )   A ( xi )  0
L  t (  B ( xi )   A ( xi ))  min(1,1  (t (  B ( xi ))  t (  A ( xi ))))
 min(1,1  (ve))  1

 Thus, in case I these two equations are

consistent with each other (prove for other
cases)
Proof of the fact that S(B,A) is
consistent with crisp set theory
 Case II (of the figure):
B (xi ) 1 if, A(xi ) 1 So, B (xi )  A(xi )  0
 So,

 max(0, 
xi U
B ( xi )   A ( xi ))
Sub( B, A)  1 

xi U
B ( xi )
 Proof (contd…)
  B ( xi )   A ( xi )  0
 A ( xi )
Sub( B, A)  1  1   ,
 B ( xi )
 0  Sub( B, A)  1
 Thus, in case II also, these two equations are
consistent with each other.
Proof of case III
 Case III: In This case, B(xi ) A(xi )  0 for xi (B A)
and B (xi )  A(xi )  0 otherwise

 So,

 max(0, 
xi U
B ( xi )   A ( xi ))
Sub( B, A)  1 

xi U
B ( xi )
 Proof (contd…)
  B ( xi )   A ( xi )  0 only for xi  ( B  A)
| B  A| | A B |
S ( B, A)  1  
|B| |B|

 Hence case III is also consistent across classical

set theory and fuzzy set theory
 Proof of case IV
 Case IV:
In This case, B (xi )  A(xi ) 1 for xi A
, B (xi ) A(xi ) 1 for xi B
and B(xi ) A(xi )  0 otherwise

So,

 max(0, 
xi U
B ( xi )   A ( xi ))
Sub( B, A)  1 

xi U
B ( xi )
 Proof (contd…)
  B ( xi )   A ( xi )  1 only for xi  B
and <=0 otherwise,
|B|
S ( B, A)  1  0
|B|
 Thus, in case IV also, these two equations are
consistent with each other.
 Hence we can say that these two equations are
consistent with each other in general.