UNIT 3 2

LOGICAL REASONING
KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION
First Order Predicate Logic Prolog Programming Unification Forward Chaining-
Backward Chaining Resolution Knowledge Representation Ontological Engineering-
Categories and Objects Events Mental Events and Mental Objects Reasoning Systems for
Categories Reasoning with Default Information.

First order Logic

Propositional logic is a declarative language because its semantics is based on a truth relation
between sentences and possible worlds. It also has sufficient expressive power to deal with
partial information, using disjunction and negation.

First-Order Logic is a logic which is sufficiently expressive to represent a good deal of our
common sense knowledge.

It is also either includes or forms the foundation of many other representation

languages.

It is also called as First-Order Predicate calculus.

It is abbreviated as FOL or FOPC

FOL adopts the foundation of propositional logic with all its advantages to build a more
expressive logic on that foundation, borrowing representational ideas from natural language
while avoiding its drawbacks.

The Syntax of natural language contains elements such as,

1. Nouns and noun phrases that refer to objects (Squares, pits, rumpuses)
2. Verbs and verb phrases that refer to among objects ( is breezy, is adjacent to)

Some of these relations are functions-relations in which there i

first-order logic
(like natural language) assumes the world contains Objects: people, houses, numbers, colors,

Relations: red, rou

68
3.1 SPECIFY THE SYNTAX OF FIRST-ORDER LOGIC IN BNF FORM

The domain of a model is DOMAIN the set of objects or domain elements it contains.
The domain is required to be nonempty every possible world must contain at least one object.
Figure 8.2 shows a model with five objects: Richard the Lionheart, King of England from 1189
to 1199; his younger brother, the evil King John, who ruled from 1199 to 1215; the left legs of
Richard and John; and a crown. The objects in the model may be related in various ways. In
the figure, Richard and John are brothers. Formally speaking, a relation TUPLE is just the set
of tuples of objects that are related. (A tuple is a collection of objects arranged in a fixed order
and is written with angle brackets surrounding the objects.) Thus, the brotherhood relation in
this model is the set

Figure 3.1 First-Order Logic in BNF Form

The crown is on
that is,
they relate pairs of objects. Certain kinds of relationships are best considered as functions, in
that a given object must be related to exactly one object in this way. For example, each person

mappings:

69
The five objects are,

Richard the Lionheart

His younger brother
The evil King John
The left legs of Richard and John
A crown

The objects in the model may be related in various ways, In the figure Richard and John
are brothers.

Formally speaking, a relation is just the set of tuples of objects that are related.

A tuple is a collection of Objects arranged in a fixed order and is written with angle
brackets surrounding the objects.

Thus, the brotherhood relation in this model is the set {(Richard the Lionheart, King
John),(King John, Richard the Lionheart)}

The c
(the crown, King John).

o The relation can be binary relation relating pairs of objects (Ex:-

relation representing a common object (Ex:- ng both Richard
and John)

Certain kinds of relationships are best considered as functions that relates an object to
exactly one object.

For Example:- each person has one left leg, so th function

that includes the following mappings (Richard the Lionheart) ----
(King John) ----

Symbols and Interpretations:

The basic syntactic elements of first-order logic are the symbols that stand for objects,
relations and functions

Kinds of Symbols

The symbols come in three kinds namely,

Constant Symbols standing for Objects (Ex:- Richard)

Predicate Symbols standing for Relations (Ex:- King)

Function Symbols stands for functions (Ex:-Left Leg)

70
 o Symbols will begin with uppercase letters
o The choice of names is entirely up to the user
o Each predicate and function symbol comes with an arity
o Arity fixes the number of arguments.

The semantics must relate sentences to models in order to determine truth.

To do this, an interpretation is needed specifying exactly which objects, relations and

functions are referred to by the constant, predicate and function symbols.

One possible interpretation called as the intended interpretation- is as follows;

Richard refers to Richard the Lion heart and John refers to the evil King John.

Brother refers to the brotherhood relation, that is the set of tuples of objects given in
equation {(Richard the Lionheart, King John),(King John, Richard the
Lionheart)}

On Head
Person, King and Crown refer to the set of objects that are persons, kings and crowns.

Left leg {(Richard the

Lion heart, King John), (King John, Richard the Lionheart)}

A complete description from the formal grammar is as follows

71
 Term A term is a logical expression that refers TERM to an object. Constant symbols
are therefore terms, but it is not always convenient to have a distinct symbol to name every

giving a name to his leg. This is what function symbols are for: instead of using a constant
symbol, we use Left Leg (John). The formal semantics of terms is straightforward. Consider a
term f(t1, . . . , tn). The function symbol f refers to some function in the model. Atomic
sentences Atomic sentence (or atom for short) is formed from a predicate symbol optionally
followed by a parenthesized list of terms, such as Brother (Richard, John). Atomic sentences
can have complex terms as arguments. Thus, Married (Father (Richard),Mother (John)) states

Complex Sentences

We can use logical connectives to construct more complex sentences, with the same
syntax and semantics as in propositional calculus

Brother (LeftLeg (Richard), John)

Brother (Richard, John) Brother (John, Richard)
King(Richard ) King(John)
King(Richard) King(John).

Quantifiers

Quantifiers are used to express properties of entire collections of objects, instead of

enumerating the objects by name. First-order logic contains two standard quantifiers, called
universal and existential

Universal quantification ( )

-order logic as

x King(x) Person(x)

ground term.

Consider the model shown in Figure 8.2 and the intended interpretation that goes with
it. We can extend the interpretation in five ways:

72
 The universally quantified sentence x King(x) Person(x) is true in the original
model if the sentence King(x) Person(x) is true under each of the five extended
interpretations. That is, the universally quantified sentence is equivalent to asserting the
following five sentences:

Richard the Lionheart is a king Richard the Lionheart is a person.

King John is a king King John is a person.

son.
The crown is a king the crown is a person.

Existential quantification ( )

Universal quantification makes statements about every object. Similarly, we can make
a statement about some object in the universe without naming it, by using an existential
quantifier. To say, for example, that King John has a crown on his head, we write

x Crown(x) OnHead(x, John)

x P is true in a given model if P is true in at least one extended interpretation that assigns x to
a domain element. That is, at least one of the following is true:

Richard the Lionheart is a crown

King John is a crown

The crown is a crown

The fifth assertion is true in the model, so the original existentially quantified sentence
is true in the model. Just as appears to be the natural connective to use with , is the natural
connective to use with .

Using as the main connective with led to an overly strong statement in the example
in the previous section; using with usually leads to a very weak statement, indeed. Consider
the following sentence:

x Crown(x) OnHead(x, John)

Applying the semantics, we see that the sentence says that at least one of the following
assertions is true:

Richard the Lionheart is a crown

King John is a crown
eg is a crown

73
and so on. Now an implication is true if both premise and conclusion are true, or if its premise
is false. So if Richard the Lionheart is not a crown, then the first assertion is true and the
existential is satisfied. So, an existentially quantified implication sentence is true whenever any
object fails to satisfy the premise

Nested quantifiers

We will often want to express more complex sentences using multiple quantifiers. The
simplest case is where th
can be written as

x y Brother (x, y) Sibling(x, y)

Consecutive quantifiers of the same type can be written as one quantifier with several
variables. For example, to say that siblinghood is a symmetric relationship, we can write

x, y Sibling(x, y) Sibling(y, x)

x y Loves(x, y).

y x Loves(x, y).

The order of quantification is therefore very important. It becomes clearer if we insert

parentheses.

x ( y Loves(x, y)) says that everyone has a particular property, namely, the property
that they love someone. On the other hand,

y ( x Loves(x, y)) says that someone in the world has a particular property, namely
the property of being loved by everybody.

Connections between and

The two quantifiers are actually intimately connected with each other, through negation.
Asserting that everyone dislikes parsnips is the same as asserting there does not exist someone
who likes them, and vice versa:

x Likes(x, Parsnips ) is equivalent to

x Likes(x, Parsnips ) is equivalent to x Likes(x, Parsnips). We can go one

ice cream:

x Likes(x, IceCream) is equivalent to x Likes(x, IceCream).

74
Equality

We can use the equality symbol to signify that two terms refer to the same object. For
example,

Father (John)=Henry

says that the object referred to by Father (John) and the object referred to by Henry are the
same.

The equality symbol can be used to state facts about a given function, as we just did for
the Father symbol. It can also be used with negation to insist that two terms are not the same
object. To say that Richard has at least two brothers, we would write

x, y Brother (x,Richard ) Brother (y,Richard ) (x=y).

Compare different knowledge representation languages

Figure 3.2 Formal languages and their ontological and epistemological commitments

What are the syntactic elements of First Order Logic?

The basic syntactic elements of first-order logic are the symbols that stand for objects,
relations, and functions. The symbols, come in three kinds:

a) constant symbols, which stand for objects;

b) predicate symbols, which stand for relations;
c) and function symbols, which stand for functions.

We adopt the convention that these symbols will begin with uppercase letters. Example:

Constant symbols :
Richard and John;
predicate symbols :
Brother, On Head, Person, King, and Crown; function symbol : LeftLeg.

75
Quantifiers

Quantifiers are used to express properties of entire collections of objects, instead of

enumerating the objects by name if a logic that allows object is found.

It has two type,

The following are the types of standard quantifiers,
Universal
Existential

Universal quantification

Explain Universal Quantifiers with an example.

Rules such as "All kings are persons,'' is written in first-order logic as

x King(x) => Person(x)

where

Thus, the sentence says, "For all x, if x is a king, then is a person." The symbol x is called a
variable(lower case letters)

The sentence x P, where P is a logical expression says that P is true for every object x.

76
The universally quantified sentence is equivalent to asserting the following five sentences

Richard the Lionheart ------ Richard the Lionheart is a person

King John is a King ------ King John is a Person
--------
--------
The crown is a King -------- The crown is a Person

Existential quantification

Universal quantification makes statements about every object.

It is possible to make a statement about some object in the universe without naming
it,by using an existential quantifier.

Example

x Crown(x) ^ OnHead(x,John)

Nested Quantifiers

More complex sentences are expressed using multiple quantifiers.

The following are the some cases of multiple quantifiers,
The simplest case where the quantifiers are of the same type.

77
For Example:-

Consecutive quantifiers of the same type can be written as one quantifier with

several variables. For Example:- to say that siblinghood is a symmetric relationship as

3.2 THE WUMPUS WORLD

The wumpus world is a cave consisting of rooms connected by passageways. Lurking

somewhere in the cave is the terrible wumpus, a beast that eats anyone who enters its room.
The wumpus can be shot by an agent, but the agent has only one arrow. Some rooms contain
bottomless pits that will trap anyone who wanders into these rooms (except for the wumpus,
which is too big to fall in). The only mitigating feature of this bleak environment is the
possibility of finding a heap of gold. Although the wumpus world is rather tame by modern
computer game standards, it illustrates some important points about intelligence. A sample
wumpus world is shown in Figure

Figure 3.3 wumpus world

78
 To specify the agent's task, we specify its percepts, actions, and goals. In the wumpus
world, these are as follows:

In the square containing the wumpus and in the directly (not diagonally)
adjacent squares the agent will perceive a stench.
In the squares directly adjacent to a pit, the agent will perceive a breeze.
In the square where the gold is, the agent will perceive a glitter.
When an agent walks into a wall, it will perceive a bump.
When the wumpus is killed, it gives out a woeful scream that can be perceived
anywhere in the cave.
The percepts will be given to the agent in the form of a list of five symbols; for
example, if there is a stench, a breeze, and a glitter but no bump and no scream,
the agent will receive the percept [Stench, Breeze, Glitter, None, None]. The
agent cannot perceive its own location.
Just as in the vacuum world, there are actions to go forward, turn right by 90°,
and turn left by 90°. In addition, the action Grab can be used to pick up an object
that is in the same square as the agent. The action Shoot can be used to fire an
arrow in a straight line in the direction the agent is facing. The arrow continues
until it either hits and kills the wumpus or hits the wall. The agent only has one
arrow, so only the first Shoot action has any effect.

The wumpus agent receives a percept vector with five elements. The corresponding
first order sentence stored in the knowledge base must include both the percept and the time at
which it occurred; otherwise, the agent will get confused about when it saw what. We use
integers for time steps. A typical percept sentence would be

Percept ([Stench, Breeze, Glitter, None, None], 5).

Here, Percept is a binary predicate, and Stench and so on are constants placed in a list.
The actions in the wumpus world can be represented by logical terms:

Turn(Right ), Turn(Left ), Forward, Shoot, Grab, Climb.

To determine which is best, the agent program executes the query

ASKVARS( a BestAction(a, 5)),

which returns a binding list such as {a/Grab}. The agent program can then return Grab
as the action to take. The raw percept data implies certain facts about the current state.

For example:

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)

79
 These rules exhibit a trivial form of the reasoning process called perception. Simple

For example, we have t Glitter (t) BestAction(Grab, t).

Given the percept and rules from the preceding paragraphs, this would yield the desired
conclusion

BestAction(Grab, 5) that is, Grab is the right thing to do. For example, if the agent is
at a square and perceives a breeze, then that square is breezy:

s, t At(Agent, s, t) Breeze(t) Breezy(s).

It is useful to know that a square is breezy because we know that the pits cannot move
about. Notice that Breezy has no time argument. Having discovered which places are breezy
(or smelly) and, very important, not breezy (or not smelly), the agent can deduce where the pits
are (and where the wumpus is). first-order logic just needs one axiom:

s Breezy(s) r Adjacent (r, s) Pit(r).

3.3 SUBSTITUTION

Let us begin with universal quantifiers

x King(x) Greedy(x) Evil(x).

Then it seems quite permissible to infer any of the following sentences:

King(John) Greedy(John) Evil(John)

King(Richard ) Greedy(Richard) Evil(Richard)
King(Father (John)) Greedy(Father (John)) Evil(Father (John)).

The rule of Universal Instantiation (UI for short) says that we can infer any sentence
obtained by substituting a ground term (a term without variables) for the variable.

Let
the rule is written

for any variable v and ground term g.

For example, the three sentences given earlier are obtained with the substitutions
{x/John}, {x/Richard }, and {x/Father (John)}.

In the rule for Existential Instantiation, the variable is replaced by a single new constant

k that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge base,

For example, from the sentence

80
 x Crown(x) OnHead(x, John) we can infer the sentence
Crown(C1) OnHead(C1, John)

EXAMPLE

Suppose our knowledge base contains just the sentences

x King(x) Greedy(x) Evil(x)
King(John)
Greedy(John) Brother (Richard, John)

Then we apply UI to the first sentence using all possible ground-term substitutions from
the vocabulary of the knowledge base in this case,

{x/John} and {x/Richard }. We obtain

King(John) Greedy(John) Evil(John)
King(Richard ) Greedy(Richard) Evil(Richard),

and we discard the universally quantified sentence. Now, the knowledge base is essentially
propositional if we view the ground atomic sentences

King(John),
Greedy(John), and so on as proposition symbols.

3.4 UNIFICATION

Lifted inference rules require finding substitutions that make different logical
expressions look identical. This process is called unification and is a key component of all first-
order inference algorithms. The UNIFY algorithm takes two sentences and returns a unifier for
them if one exists: where .

Suppose we have a query AskVars(Knows(John, x)): whom does John know? Answers
can be found by finding all sentences in the knowledge base that unify with Knows(John, x).

Here are the results of unification with four different sentences that might be in the
knowledge base: UNIFY(Knows(John, x), Knows(John, Jane)) = {x/Jane}

UNIFY(Knows(John, x), Knows(y, Bill )) = {x/Bill, y/John}

UNIFY(Knows(John, x), Knows(y, Mother (y))) = {y/John, x/Mother (John)}

UNIFY(Knows(John, x), Knows(x, Elizabeth)) = fail.

The last unification fails because x cannot take on the values John and Elizabeth at the
same time. Now, remember that Knows(x, Elizabeth)
we should be able to infer that John knows Elizabeth. The problem arises only because the two
sentences happen to use the same variable name, x. The problem can be avoided by

81
standardizing apart one of the two sentences being unified, which means renaming its variables
to avoid name clashes. For example, we can rename x in

Knows(x, Elizabeth) to x17 (a new variable name) without changing its meaning.

Now the unification will work

UNIFY(Knows(John, x), Knows(x17, Elizabeth)) = {x/Elizabeth, x17/John} UNIFY

should return a substitution that makes the two arguments look the same. But there could be
more than one such unifier.

For example,

UNIFY(Knows(John, x), Knows(y, z)) could return

{y/John, x/z} or {y/John, x/John, z/John}.

The first unifier gives Knows(John, z) as the result of unification, whereas the second
gives Knows(John, John). The second result could be obtained from the first by an additional
substitution {z/John}; we say that the first unifier is more general than the second, because it
places fewer restrictions on the values of the variables. An algorithm for computing most
general unifiers is shown in Figure.

unifier along the way, but failing if two corresponding points in the
structures do not match. There is one expensive step: when matching a variable against a
complex term, one must check whether the variable itself occurs inside the term; if it does, the
match fails because no consistent unifier can be constructed.

Figure 3.4 Recursively explore

82
 In artificial intelligence, forward and backward chaining is one of the important topics,
but before understanding forward and backward chaining lets first understand that from where
these two terms came.

Inference engine

The inference engine is the component of the intelligent system in artificial intelligence,
which applies logical rules to the knowledge base to infer new information from known facts.
The first inference engine was part of the expert system. Inference engine commonly proceeds
in two modes, which are:

a. Forward chaining
b. Backward chaining

Horn Clause and Definite clause

Horn clause and definite clause are the forms of sentences, which enables knowledge
base to use a more restricted and efficient inference algorithm. Logical inference algorithms
use forward and backward chaining approaches, which require KB in the form of the first-order
definite clause.nt

Definite clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with exactly one positive
literal is known as a definite clause or strict horn clause.

Horn clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with at most one positive
literal is known as horn clause. Hence all the definite clauses are horn clauses.

Example: (¬ p V ¬ q V k). It has only one positive literal k.

It is equivalent to p

A. Forward Chaining

Forward chaining is also known as a forward deduction or forward reasoning method

when using an inference engine. Forward chaining is a form of reasoning which start with
atomic sentences in the knowledge base and applies inference rules (Modus Ponens) in the
forward direction to extract more data until a goal is reached.

The Forward-chaining algorithm starts from known facts, triggers all rules whose
premises are satisfied, and add their conclusion to the known facts. This process repeats until
the problem is solved.

Properties of Forward-Chaining

o It is a down-up approach, as it moves from bottom to top.

o It is a process of making a conclusion based on known facts or data, by starting

from the initial state and reaches the goal state.

83
 o Forward-chaining approach is also called as data-driven as we reach to the goal
using available data.

o Forward -chaining approach is commonly used in the expert system, such as CLIPS,
business, and production rule systems.

Consider the following famous example which we will use in both approaches:

Example

"As per the law, it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. Country
A, an enemy of America, has some missiles, and all the missiles were sold to it by Robert, who
is an American citizen."

Prove that "Robert is criminal."

To solve the above problem, first, we will convert all the above facts into first-order
definite clauses, and then we will use a forward-chaining algorithm to reach the goal.

Facts Conversion into FOL

o It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. (Let's say p, q, and r
are variables)
American (p) weapon(q) sells (p, q, r) (1)

o Country A has some missiles. p Owns(A, p) Missile(p). It can be written in two

definite clauses by using Existential Instantiation, introducing new Constant T1.
Owns(A, T1) (2)
Missile(T1) (3)

o All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.

p Missiles(p) (4)

o Missiles are weapons.

(5)

o Enemy of America is known as hostile.

(6)

o Country A is an enemy of America.

Enemy (A, America) (7)

o Robert is American
American(Robert). (8)

84
Forward chaining proof

Step-1

In the first step we will start with the known facts and will choose the sentences which
do not have implications, such as: American (Robert), Enemy(A, America), Owns(A, T1), and
Missile(T1). All these facts will be represented as below.

Figure 3.5

Step-2

At the second step, we will see those facts which infer from available facts and with
satisfied premises.

Rule-(1) does not satisfy premises, so it will not be added in the first iteration.

Rule-(2) and (3) are already added.

Rule-(4) satisfy with the substitution {p/T1}, so Sells (Robert, T1, A) is added, which infers
from the conjunction of Rule (2) and (3).

Rule-(6) is satisfied with the substitution(p/A), so Hostile(A) is added and which infers from
Rule-(7).

Figure 3.6

Step-3

At step-3, as we can check Rule-(1) is satisfied with the substitution {p/Robert, q/T1,
r/A}, so we can add Criminal (Robert) which infers all the available facts. And hence we
reached our goal statement.

85
 Figure 3.7

Hence it is proved that Robert is Criminal using forward chaining approach.

B. Backward Chaining

Backward-chaining is also known as a backward deduction or backward reasoning method

when using an inference engine. A backward chaining algorithm is a form of reasoning, which
starts with the goal and works backward, chaining through rules to find known facts that
support the goal.

Properties of backward chaining

o It is known as a top-down approach.

o Backward-chaining is based on modus ponens inference rule.
o In backward chaining, the goal is broken into sub-goal or sub-goals to prove the facts
true.
o It is called a goal-driven approach, as a list of goals decides which rules are selected
and used.
o Backward -chaining algorithm is used in game theory, automated theorem proving
tools, inference engines, proof assistants, and various AI applications.
o The backward-chaining method mostly used a depth-first search strategy for proof.

Example

In backward-chaining, we will use the same above example, and will rewrite all the rules.

o American (p) weapon(q) sells (p, q, r) (1)

Owns(A, T1) (2)

86
 o Missile(T1)

o ?p Missiles(p) (4)

o (5)

o (6)

o Enemy (A, America) (7)

o American (Robert). (8)

Backward-Chaining proof

In Backward chaining, we will start with our goal predicate, which is Criminal (Robert),
and then infer further rules.

Step-1

At the first step, we will take the goal fact. And from the goal fact, we will infer other
facts, and at last, we will prove those facts true. So our goal fact is "Robert is Criminal," so
following is the predicate of it.

Step-2

At the second step, we will infer other facts form goal fact which satisfies the rules. So
as we can see in Rule-1, the goal predicate Criminal (Robert) is present with substitution
{Robert/P}. So we will add all the conjunctive facts below the first level and will replace p
with Robert.

Here we can see American (Robert) is a fact, so it is proved here.

Figure 3.8

87
Step-3

t At step-3, we will extract further fact Missile(q) which infer from Weapon(q), as it
satisfies Rule-(5). Weapon (q) is also true with the substitution of a constant T1 at q.

Figure 3.9

Step-4

At step-4, we can infer facts Missile(T1) and Owns(A, T1) form Sells(Robert, T1, r)
which satisfies the Rule- 4, with the substitution of A in place of r. So these two statements are
proved here.

Figure 3.10

88
Step-5

At step-5, we can infer the fact Enemy(A, America) from Hostile(A) which satisfies
Rule- 6. And hence all the statements are proved true using backward chaining.

Figure 3.11

Suppose you have a production system with the FOUR rules: R1: IF A AND C then F
R2: IF A AND E, THEN G R3: IF B, THEN E R4: R3: IF G, THEN D and you have four initial

3.5 RESOLUTION IN FOL

Resolution

Resolution is a theorem proving technique that proceeds by building refutation proofs,

i.e., proofs by contradictions. It was invented by a Mathematician John Alan Robinson in the
year 1965.

Resolution is used, if there are various statements are given, and we need to prove a
conclusion of those statements. Unification is a key concept in proofs by resolutions.
Resolution is a single inference rule which can efficiently operate on the conjunctive normal
form or clausal form.

Clause: Disjunction of literals (an atomic sentence) is called a clause. It is also known
as a unit clause.

Conjunctive Normal Form: A sentence represented as a conjunction of clauses is said

to be conjunctive normal form or CNF.

89
Steps for Resolution

1. Conversion of facts into first-order logic.

2. Convert FOL statements into CNF
3. Negate the statement which needs to prove (proof by contradiction)
4. Draw resolution graph (unification).

To better understand all the above steps, we will take an example in which we will
apply resolution.

Example
a. John likes all kind of food.
b. Apple and vegetable are food
c. Anything anyone eats and not killed is food.
d. Anil eats peanuts and still alive
e. Harry eats everything that Anil eats. Prove by resolution that:
f. John likes peanuts.

Step-1: Conversion of Facts into FOL

In the first step we will convert all the given statements into its first order logic.

o
1. x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2.
3. x killed(x)] V food(y)
4.
5. x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
6. x¬ [¬ killed(x) ] V alive(x)
7. x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
8. likes(John, Peanuts).

90
o Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite
1. x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2.
3. x y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)
4.
5. x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
6. x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
7. x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
8. likes(John, Peanuts).

o Rename variables or standardize variables

1. x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2.
3. y z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
4.
5. w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
6. g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)
7. k ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
8. likes(John, Peanuts).

o Eliminate existential instantiation quantifier by elimination. In this step, we will

eliminate existential quantifier , and this process is known as Skolemization. But in
this example problem since there is no existential quantifier so all the statements will
remain same in this step.

o Drop Universal quantifiers. In this step we will drop all universal quantifier since all
the statements are not implicitly quantified so we don't need it.

1. ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple)
3. food(vegetables)
4. ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
5. eats (Anil, Peanuts)
6. alive(Anil)
7. ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
8. killed(g) V alive(g)
9. ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
10. likes(John, Peanuts).

o Distribute conjunction over disjunction ¬.This step will not make any change in
this problem.
91
Step-3: Negate the statement to be proved

In this statement, we will apply negation to the conclusion statements, which will be
written as ¬likes(John, Peanuts)

Step-4: Draw Resolution graph

o Now in this step, we will solve the problem by resolution tree using substitution. For
the above problem, it will be given as follows:

Figure 3.12

Explanation of Resolution graph

o In the first step of resolution graph, ¬likes(John, Peanuts), and likes(John, x) get
resolved (canceled) by substitution of {Peanuts/x}, and we are left with ¬
food(Peanuts)

o In the second step of the resolution graph, ¬ food (Peanuts), and food(z) get resolved
(canceled) by substitution of { Peanuts/z}, and we are left with ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) V
killed(y).

o In the third step of the resolution graph, ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) and eats (Anil, Peanuts) get
resolved by substitution {Anil/y}, and we are left with Killed(Anil).

o In the fourth step of the resolution graph, Killed(Anil) and ¬ killed(k) get resolve by
substitution {Anil/k}, and we are left with ¬ alive(Anil).

92
o In the last step of the resolution graph ¬ alive(Anil) and alive(Anil) get resolved.

Difference between Predicate Logic and Propositional Logic

Table 3.1

S. No. Predicate logic Propositional logic

1. Predicate logic is a generalization of A preposition is a declarative statement
propositional logic that allows us to
express and infer arguments in infinite both).
models.
2. Predicate logic (also called predicate Propositional logic is an axiomatization
calculus and first-order logic) is an of Boolean logic. Propositional logic is
extension of propositional logic to decidable, for example by the method of
formulas involving terms and truth table.
predicates. The full predicate logic is
undecidable
3. Predicate logic have variables Propositional logic has variables.
Parameters are all constant.
4. A predicate is a logical statement that Propositional logic deals solely with
depends on one or more variables (not propositions and logical connectives.
necessarily Boolean variables)
5. Predicate logic there are objects, Proposition logic is represented in terms
properties, functions (relations) are of Boolean variables and logical
involved. connectives.
6. In predicate logic, we symbolize subject In propositional logic, we use letters to
and predicate separately. Logicians symbolize entire propositions.
often use lowercase letters to symbolize Propositions are statements of the form
subjects (or objects) and upper case
letter to symbolize predicates. predicate.
7. Predicate logic uses quantifies such as Prepositional logic has not qualifiers.

8. Example Example

or or

3.6 KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION ONTOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

Concepts such as Events, Time, Physical Objects, and Beliefs that occur in many
different domains. Representing these abstract concepts is sometimes called ontological
engineering.

93
 Figure 3.13 The upper ontology of the world, showing the topics to be
covered later in the chapter. Each link indicates that the lower concept is a
specialization of the upper one. Specializations are not necessarily disjoint;
a human is both an animal and an agent, for example.

The general framework of concepts is called an upper ontology because of the

convention of drawing graphs with the general concepts at the top and the more specific
concepts below them, as in Figure

Categories and Objects

The organization of objects into categories is a vital part of knowledge representation.

Although interaction with the world takes place at the level of individual objects, much
reasoning takes place at the level of categories.

For example, a shopper would normally have the goal of buying a basketball, rather
than a particular basketball such as BB9 There are two choices for representing categories in
first-order logic: predicates and objects. That is, we can use the predicate Basketball (b), or we
can reify1 the category as an object, Basketballs.

We could then say Member(b, Basketballs ), which we will abbreviate as b

Basketballs, to say that b is a member of the category of basketballs. We say
Subset(Basketballs, Balls), abbreviated as Basketballs Balls, to say that Basketballs is a
subcategory of Balls. Categories serve to organize and simplify the knowledge base through
inheritance. If we say that all instances of the category Food are edible, and if we assert that
Fruit is a subclass of Food and Apples is a subclass of Fruit, then we can infer that every apple
is edible. We say that the individual apples inherit the property of edibility, in this case from
their membership in the Food category. First-order logic makes it easy to state facts about
categories, either by relating objects to categories or by quantifying over their members. Here
are some types of facts, with examples of each:

An object is a member of a category.

94
BB9 Basketballs
A category is a subclass of another category. Basketballs Balls
All members of a category have some properties.

(x Basketballs) Spherical (x)

Members of a category can be recognized by some properties.
Orange(x) Round (x) Diameter(x)=9.5 x Balls x Basketballs
A category as a whole has some properties.

Dogs Domesticated Species

Notice that because Dogs is a category and is a member of Domesticated Species, the
latter must be a category of categories. Categories can also be defined by providing necessary
and sufficient conditions for membership. For example, a bachelor is an unmarried adult male:

x Bachelors Unmarried(x) x Adults x Males

Physical Composition

We use the general PartOf relation to say that one thing is part of another. Objects can
be grouped into part of hierarchies, reminiscent of the Subset hierarchy:

PartOf (Bucharest, Romania)

PartOf (Romania, EasternEurope)
PartOf(EasternEurope, Europe)
PartOf (Europe, Earth)
The PartOf relation is transitive and reflexive; that is,
PartOf (x, y) PartOf (y, z) PartOf (x, z)
PartOf (x, x)
Therefore, we can conclude PartOf (Bucharest, Earth).
For example, if the apples are Apple1, Apple2, and Apple3, then
BunchOf ({Apple1,Apple2,Apple3})
denotes the composite object with the three apples as parts (not elements). We can
define BunchOf in terms of the PartOf relation. Obviously, each element of s is part
of

BunchOf (s): x x s PartOf (x, BunchOf (s)) Furthermore, BunchOf (s) is the
smallest object satisfying this condition. In other words, BunchOf (s) must be part of
any object that has all the elements of s as parts:

y[ xx s PartOf (x, y)] PartOf (BunchOf (s), y)

95
Measurements

In both scientific and commonsense theories of the world, objects have height, mass,
cost, and so on. The values that we assign for these properties are called measures.
Length(L1)=Inches(1.5)=Centimeters(3.81)

Conversion between units is done by equating multiples of one unit to another:

Centimeters(2.54 ×d)=Inches(d)

Similar axioms can be written for pounds and kilograms, seconds and days, and dollars
and cents. Measures can be used to describe objects as follows:

Diameter (Basketball12)=Inches(9.5)
ListPrice(Basketball12)=$(19)
d Days Duration(d)=Hours(24)

Time Intervals

Event calculus opens us up to the possibility of talking about time, and time intervals.
We will consider two kinds of time intervals: moments and extended intervals. The distinction
is that only moments have zero duration:

Partition({Moments,ExtendedIntervals}, Intervals )
i Moments Duration(i)=Seconds(0)

The functions Begin and End pick out the earliest and latest moments in an interval,
and the function Time delivers the point on the time scale for a moment.

The function Duration gives the difference between the end time and the start time.

Interval (i)
Time(Begin(AD1900))=Seconds(0)
Time(Begin(AD2001))=Seconds(3187324800)
Time(End(AD2001))=Seconds(3218860800)
Duration(AD2001)=Seconds(31536000)

Two intervals Meet if the end time of the first equals the start time of the second. The
complete set of interval relations, as proposed by Allen (1983), is shown graphically in Figure
12.2 and logically below:

Meet(i,j) End(i)=Begin(j)
Before(i,j) End(i) < Begin(j)
After (j,i) Before(i, j)
During(i,j) Begin(j) < Begin(i) < End(i) < End(j)

96
 Overlap(i,j) Begin(i) < Begin(j) < End(i) < End(j)
Begins(i,j) Begin(i) = Begin(j)
Finishes(i,j) End(i) = End(j)
Equals(i,j) Begin(i) = Begin(j) End(i) = End(j)

Figure 3.14 Predicates on time intervals

3.7 EVENTS

Event calculus reifies fluents and events. The fluent At(Shankar, Berkeley) is an
object that refers to the fact of Shankar being in Berkeley, but does not by itself say anything
about whether it is true. To assert that a fluent is actually true at some point in time we use the
predicate T, as in T(At(Shankar, Berkeley), t). Events are described as instances of event
categories. The event E1 of Shankar flying from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. is
described as E1 Flyings Flyer (E1, Shankar ) Origin(E1, SF) Destination (E1,DC)
we can define an alternative three-argument version of the category of flying events and say
E1 Flyings(Shankar, SF,DC) We then use Happens(E1, i) to say that the event E1 took
place over the time interval i, and we say the same thing in functional form with Extent(E1)=i.
We represent time intervals by a (start, end) pair of times; that is, i = (t1, t2) is the time interval
that starts at t1 and ends at t2. The complete set of predicates for one version of the event
calculus is T(f, t) Fluent f is true at time t Happens(e, i) Event e happens over the time interval
i Initiates(e, f, t) Event e causes fluent f to start to hold at time t Terminates(e, f, t) Event e
causes fluent f to cease to hold at time t Clipped(f, i) Fluent f ceases to be true at some point
during time interval i Restored (f, i) Fluent f becomes true sometime during time interval i We
assume a distinguished event, Start, that describes the initial state by saying which fluents are
initiated or terminated at the start time. We define T by saying that a fluent holds at a point in
time if the fluent was initiated by an event at some time in the past and was not made false
(clipped) by an intervening event. A fluent does not hold if it was terminated by an event and
not made true (restored) by another event. Formally, the axioms are:

Happens(e, (t1, t2)) Initiates(e, f, t1) Clipped(f, (t1, t)) t1 < t T(f,
t)Happens(e, (t1, t2)) Terminates(e, f, t1) Restored (f, (t1, t)) t1 < t T(f, t)

97
 where Clipped and Restored are defined by Clipped(f, (t1, t2)) e, t, t3 Happens(e,
(t, t3)) Terminates(e, f, t) Restored (f, (t1, t2)) e, t, t3 Happens(e, (t,
t3)) Initiates(e, f, t)

3.8 MENTAL EVENTS AND MENTAL OBJECTS

The model does not have to be detailed. We do not have to be able to predict how many
milliseconds it will take for a particular agent to make a deduction. We will be happy just to be
able to conclude that mother knows whether or not she is sitting.

We begin with the propositional attitudes that an agent can have toward mental objects:
attitudes such as Believes, Knows, Wants, Intends, and Informs. The difficulty is that these

For example, suppose we try to assert that Lois knows that Superman can fly: Knows
(Lois, CanFly(Superman)) One minor issue with this is that we normally think of
CanFly(Superman) as a sentence, but here it appears as a term. That issue can be patched up
just be reifying CanFly(Superman); making it a fluent. A more serious problem isthat, if it is
true that Superman is Clark Kent, then we must conclude that Lois knows that Clark can fly:
(Superman = Clark) Knows(Lois, CanFly(Superman)) |= Knows(Lois, CanFly (Clark))
Modal logic is designed to address this problem. Regular logic is concerned with a single

modal operators that take sentences (rather than terms) as arguments.

operator for knowledge. It takes two arguments, an agent (written as the subscript) and a
sentence. The syntax of modal logic is the same as first-order logic, except that sentences can
also be formed with modal operators. In first-order logic a model contains a set of objects and
an interpretation that maps each name to the appropriate object, relation, or function. In modal

will need a more complicated model, one that consists of a

collection of possible worlds rather than just one true world. The worlds are connected in a
graph by accessibility relations, one relation for each modal operator. We say that world w1 is
accessible from world w0 with respect to the modal operator KA if everything in w1 is
consistent with what A knows in w0, and we write this as Acc(KA,w0,w1). In diagrams such
as Figure 12.4 we show accessibility as an arrow between possible worlds. In general, a
knowledge atom KAP is true in world w if and only if P is true in every world accessible from
w. The truth of more complex sentences is derived by recursive application of this rule and the
normal rules of first-order logic. That means that modal logic can be used to reason about

is Clark Kent, she does know that Clark knows: KLois [KClark Identity(Superman, Clark )

98
 KClark Identity(Superman, Clark )] Figure 3.15 shows some possible worlds for this
domain, with accessibility relations for Lois and Superman

Figure 3.15

In the TOP-LEFT diagram, it is common knowledge that Superman knows his own
identity, and neither he nor Lois has seen the weather report. So in w0 the worlds w0 and w2
are accessible to Superman; maybe rain is predicted, maybe not. For Lois all four worlds are

But she does know that Superman knows whether he is Clark, because in every world that is
accessible to Lois, either Superman knows I, or he knows I. Lois does not know which is the
case, but either way she knows Superman knows. In the TOP-RIGHT diagram it is common
knowledge that Lois has seen the weather report. So in w4 she knows rain is predicted and in
w6 she knows rain is not predicted. Superman does not know the report, but he knows that Lois
knows, because in every world that is accessible to him, either she knows R or she knows
R. In the BOTTOM diagram we represent the scenario where it is common knowledge that
Superman knows his identity, and Lois might or might not have seen the weather report. We
represent this by combining the two top scenarios, and adding arrows to show that Superman

arrows for her. In w0 Superman still knows I but not R, and now he does not know whether
Lois knows R. From what Superman knows, he might be in w0 or w2, in which case Lois does
not know whether R is true, or he could be in w4, in which case she knows R, or w6, in which
case she knows R.

3.9 REASONING SYSTEMS FOR CATEGORIES

99
 This section describes systems specially designed for organizing and reasoning with
categories. There are two closely related families of systems: semantic networks provide
graphical aids for visualizing a knowledge base and efficient algorithms for inferring properties
of an object on the basis of its category membership; and description logics provide a formal
language for constructing and combining category definitions and efficient algorithms for
deciding subset and superset relationships between categories.

3.10 SEMANTIC NETWORKS

There are many variants of semantic networks, but all are capable of representing
individual objects, categories of objects, and relations among objects. A typical graphical
notation displays object or category names in ovals or boxes, and connects them with labeled
links. For example, Figure 12.5 has a Member Of link between Mary and Female Persons,
corresponding to the logical assertion Mary FemalePersons ; similarly, the SisterOf link
between Mary and John corresponds to the assertion SisterOf (Mary, John). We can connect
categories using SubsetOf links, and so on. We know that persons have female persons as
mothers, so can we draw a HasMother link from Persons to FemalePersons? The answer is no,
because HasMother is a relation between a person and his or her mother, and categories do not
have mothers. For this reason, we have used a special notation the double-boxed link in
Figure 12.5. This link asserts that x x Persons [ y HasMother (x, y) y FemalePersons
] We might also want to assert that persons have two legs that is, x x Persons Legs(x,
2) The semantic network notation makes it convenient to perform inheritance reasoning. For
example, by virtue of being a person, Mary inherits the property of having two legs. Thus, to
find out how many legs Mary has, the inheritance algorithm followsthe MemberOf link from
Mary to the category she belongs to, and then follows SubsetOf links up the hierarchy until it
finds a category for which there is a boxed Legs link in this case, the Persons category.

Figure 3.16 A semantic network with four objects (John, Mary, 1,

and 2) and four categories. Relations are denoted by labeled links.

Inheritance becomes complicated when an object can belong to more than one category
or when a category can be a subset of more than one other category; this is called multiple
inheritance. The drawback of semantic network notation, compared to first-order logic: the fact

100
that links between bubbles represent only binary relations. For example, the sentence
Fly(Shankar, NewYork, NewDelhi, Yesterday) cannot be asserted directly in a semantic
network. Nonetheless, we can obtain the effect of n-ary assertions by reifying the proposition
itself as an event belonging to an appropriate event category. Figure 12.6 shows the semantic
network structure for this particular event. Notice that the restriction to binary relations forces
the creation of a rich ontology of reified concepts. One of the most important aspects of
semantic networks is their ability to represent.

Figure 3.17 A fragment of a semantic network showing the

representation of the logical assertion Fly(Shankar, NewYork,
NewDelhi, Yesterday)

One of the most important aspects of semantic networks is their ability to represent
default values for categories. Examining Figure 3.6 carefully, one notices that John has one
leg, despite the fact that he is a person and all persons have two legs. In a strictly logical KB,
this would be a contradiction, but in a semantic network, the assertion that all persons have two
legs has only default status; that is, a person is assumed to have two legs unless this is
contradicted by more specific information

We also include the negated goal Criminal (West). The resolution proof is shown in
Figure 3.18.

101
 Figure 3.18 A resolution proof that West is a criminal. At each step,
the literals that unify are in bold.

Notice
clauses from the knowledge base until the empty clause is generated. This is characteristic of
resolution on Horn clause knowledge bases. In fact, the clauses along the main spine
correspond exactly to the consecutive values of the goals variable in the backward-chaining
algorithm of Figure. This is because we always choose to resolve with a clause whose positive
exactly what
happens in backward chaining. Thus, backward chaining is just a special case of resolution
with a particular control strategy to decide which resolution to perform next.

EXAMPLE 2

Our second example makes use of Skolemization and involves clauses that are not
definite clauses. This results in a somewhat more complex proof structure. In English, the
problem is a follows:

Everyone who love all animals is loved by someone.

Anyone who kills an animals is loved by no one.
Jack loves all animals.
Either Jack or Curiosity killed the cat, who is named Tuna.
Did Curiosity kill the cat? First, we express the original sentences, some background
knowledge, and the negated goal G in first-order logic:

A. x [ y Animal(y) Loves(x,y) [ y Loves(y,x)]

B. x [ x Animal(z) ^ Kills (x,z)] [ y Loves(y,x)]
C. x Animals(x) Loves(Jack, x)
D. Kills (Jack, Tuna) V Kills (Curiosity, Tuna)
E. Cat (Tuna)
F. x Cat(x) Animal (x)
G. Kills(Curiosity, Tuna)

102
 Now we apply the conversion procedure to convert each sentence to CNF:

A1. Animal(F(x)) v Loves (G(x),x)

A2. Loves(x,F(x)) v Loves (G(x),x)
B. Loves(y,x) v Animal(z) V Kills(x,z)
C. Animal(x) v Loves(Jack, x)
D. Kills(Jack, Tuna) v Kills (Curiosity, Tuna)
E. Cat (Tuna)
F. Cat(x) v Animal (x)
G. Kills (Curiosity, Tuna)

The resolution proof that Curiosity kills the cat is given in Figure. In English, the proof
could be paraphrased as follows:

Suppose Curiosity did not kill Tuna. We know that either Jack or Curiosity did; thus
Jack must have. Now, Tuna is a cat and cats are animals, so Tuna is an animal. Because anyone
who kills an animal is loved by no one, we know that no one loves Jack. On the other hand,
Jack loves all animals, so someone loves him; so we have a contradiction. Therefore Curiosity
killed the cat.

Figure 3.19 A resolution proof that Curiosity killed that Cat. Notice then use
of factoring in the derivation of the clause Loves(G(Jack), Jack). Notice also
in the upper right, the unification of Loves(x,F(x)) and Loves(Jack,x) can
only succeed after the variables have been standardized apart

The

little more work to obtain the answer. The goal is w Kills (w, Tuna), which, when negated
become Kills (w, Tuna) in CNF, Repeating the proof in Figure with the new negated goal,
we obtain a similar proof tree, but with the substitution {w/Curiosity} in one of the steps. So,
in this case, finding out who killed the cat is just a matter of keeping track of the bindings for
the query variables in the proof.

EXAMPLE 3

1. All people who are graduating are happy.

103
2. All happy people smile.
3. Someone is graduating.
4. Conclusion: Is someone smiling?

Solution

Convert the sentences into predicate Logic

1. x graduating(x) -> happy(x)
2. x happy(x) -> smile(x)
3. x graduating(x)
4. x smile(x)

Convert to clausal form

(i)
1. x graduating(x) vhappy(x)
2. x happy(x) vsmile(x)
3. x graduating(x)
4. - x smile(x)

(ii) Reduce the scope of negation

1. x graduating(x) vhappy(x)
2. x happy(x) vsmile(x)
3. x graduating(x)
4. x smile(x)

(iii) Standardize variable apart

1. x graduating(x) vhappy(x)
2. x happy(y) vsmile(y)
3. x graduating(z)
4. x smile(w)

(iv) Move all quantifiers to the left

1. x graduating(x) vhappy(x)
2. x happy(y) vsmile(y)
3. x graduating(z)
4. w smile(w)

(v) Eliminate
1. x graduating(x) vhappy(x)
2. x happy(y) vsmile(y)

104
3. graduating(name1)
4. w smile(w)

(vi) Eliminate
1. graduating(x) vhappy(x)
2. happy(y) vsmile(y)
3. graduating(name1)
4. smile(w)

(vii) Convert to conjunct of disjuncts form

(viii) Make each conjunct a separate clause.

(ix) Standardize variables apart again.

Figure 3.20 Standardize variables

Thus, we proved someone is smiling.

EXAMPLE 4

Explain the unification algorithm used for reasoning under predicate logic with an
example. Consider the following facts

a. Team India
b. Team Australia
c. Final match between India and Australia
d. India scored 350 runs, Australia scored 350 runs, India lost 5 wickets, Australia
lost 7 wickets.
f. If the scores are same the team which lost minimum wickets wins the match.

105
Solution

Convert into predicate Logic

(a) team(India)
(b) team(Australia)
(c) h(India,Australia)
(d) score(India,350) ^ score(Australia,350) ^ wicket(India,5) ^ wicket(Australia,7)
(e)
(f) xy

Convert to clausal form

(i)
(a) team(India)
(b) team(Australia)
(c) (team(India) ^ team(Australia) v final_match(India,Australia)
(d) score(India,350) ^ score(Australia,350) ^ wicket(India,5) ^ wicket(Australia,7)
(e) x (team(x) ^ wins(x)) vscore(x,max_runs))
(f) xy (score(x,equal(y)) ^ wicket(x,min) ^final_match(x,y)) vwin(x)

(ii) Reduce the scope of negation

(a) team(India)
(b) team(Australia)
(c) team(India) v team(Australia) v final_match(India, Australia)
(d) score(India,350) ^ score(Australia,350) ^ wicket(India,5) ^ wicket(Australia,7)
(e) x team(x) v wins(x) vscore(x,max_runs))
(f) xy (score(x,equal(y)) v wicket(x,min_wicket) v final_match(x,y)) vwin(x)

(iii) Standardize variables apart

(iv) Move all quantifiers to the left

(v) Eliminate
(a) team(India)
(b) team(Australia)
(c) team(India) v team(Australia) v final_match (India,Australia)
(d) score(India,350) ^ score(Australia,350) ^ wicket(India,5) ^ wicket(Australia,7)
(e) team(x) v wins(x) vscore(x, max_runs))
(f) score(x,equal(y)) v wicket(x,min_wicket) v-final_match(x,y)) vwin(x)

(vi) Eliminate

106
(vii) Convert to conjunct of disjuncts form.

(viii) Make each conjunct a separate clause.

(a) team(India)
(b) team(Australia)
(c) team(India) v team(Australia) v final_match (India,Australia)
(d) score(India,350)
Score(Australia,350)
Wicket(India,5)
Wicket(Austrialia,7)
(e) team(x) v wins(x) vscore(x,max_runs))
(f) score(x,equal(y)) v wicket(x,min_wicket) v final_match(x,y)) vwin(x)

(ix) Standardize variables apart again

To prove:win(India)
Disprove: win(India)

Figure 3.21 Standardize variables

Thus, proved India wins match.

EXAMPLE 5

Problem 3

Consider the following facts and represent them in predicate form:

F1. There are 500 employees in ABC company.

F2. Employees earning more than Rs. 5000 per tax.
F3. John is a manger in ABC company.
F4. Manger earns Rs. 10,000.

107
Solution

Convert into predicate Logic

1. company(ABC) ^employee(500,ABC)
2. x
3. manager(John,ABC)
4.

Convert to clausal form

(i)
1. company(ABC) ^employee(500,ABC)
2. x (company(ABC) ^employee(x,ABC) ^ earns(x,5000)) v pays(x,tax)
3. manager(John,ABC)
4. x manager(x, ABC) v earns(x,10000)

(ii) Reduce the scope of negation

1. company(ABC) ^employee(500,ABC)
2. x company(ABC) v employee(x,ABC) v earns(x,5000) v pays(x,tax)
3. manager(John,ABC)
4. x manager(x, ABC) v earns(x,10000)

(iii) Standardize variables apart

1. company(ABC) ^employee(500,ABC)
2. x company(ABC) v employee(x,ABC) v earns(x,5000) v pays(x,tax)
3. manager(John,ABC)
4. x manager(x, ABC) v earns(x,10000)

(iv) Move all quantifiers to the left

(v) Eliminate

1. company(ABC) ^employee(500,ABC)
2. company(ABC) v employee(x,ABC) v earns(x,5000) v pays(x,tax)
3. manager(John,ABC)
4. manager(x, ABC) v earns(x,10000)

(vi) Eliminate

(vii) Convert to conjunct of disjuncts form

108
(viii) Make each conjunct a separate clause.
1. (a) company(ABC)
(b) employee(500,ABC)
2. company(ABC) v employee(x,ABC) v earns(x,5000) v pays(x,tax)
3. manager(John,ABC)
4. manager(x, ABC) v earns(x,10000)

(ix) Standardize variables apart again.

Prove:pays(John,tax)
Disprove: pays(John,tax)

Figure 3.22 Standardize variables

Thus, proved john pays tax.

EXAMPLE 6 & EXAMPLE 7

Problem 4
If a perfect square is divisible by a prime p then it is also divisible by square of p.
Every perfect square is divisible by some prime.
36 is a perfect square.

Convert into predicate Logic

1.

109
2. x y perfect)sq(x) ^prime(y) ^divides(x,y)
3. perfect_sq(36)

Problem 5

1. Marcus was a a man

man(Marcus)
2. Marcus was a Pompeian
Pompeian(Marcus)
3. All Pompeians were Romans

4. Caesar was ruler

Ruler(Caesar)
5. All Romans were either loyal to Caesar or hated him.

6. Everyone is loyal to someone

x
7. People only try to assassinate rulers they are not loyal to
x y (person(x) ^ ruler(y)^ -loyalto(x,y))
8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar
tryassassinate(Marcus, Caesar)
9. All men are persons

Example

Trace the operation of the unification algorithm on each of the following pairs of literals:

i) f(Marcus) and f(Caesar)

ii) f(x) and f(g(y))
iii) f(marcus,g(x,y)) and f(x,g(Caesar, Marcus))

In propositional logic it is easy to determine that two literals can not both be true at the
same time. Simply look for L and ~L. In predicate logic, this matching process is more
complicated, since bindings of variables must be considered.

For example man (john) and man(john) is a contradiction while man (john) and
man(Himalayas) is not. Thus in order to determine contradictions we need a matching
procedure that compares two literals and discovers whether there exist a set of substitutions
that makes them identical. There is a recursive procedure that does this matching. It is called
Unification algorithm.

110
 In Unification algorithm each literal is represented as a list, where first element is the
name of a predicate and the remaining elements are arguments. The argument may be a single
element (atom) or may be another list. For example we can have literals as

(tryassassinate Marcus Caesar)

(tryassassinate Marcus (ruler of Rome))

To unify two literals, first check if their first elements re same. If so proceed. Otherwise
they can not be unified. For example the literals

(try assassinate Marcus Caesar)

(hate Marcus Caesar)

Can not be Unfied. The unification algorithm recursively matches pairs of elements,
one pair at a time. The matching rules are :

i) Different constants, functions or predicates can not match, whereas identical

ones can.

ii) A variable can match another variable, any constant or a function or predicate
expression, subject to the condition that the function or [predicate expression
must not contain any instance of the variable being matched (otherwise it will
lead to infinite recursion).

iii) The substitution must be consistent. Substituting y for x now and then z for x
later is inconsistent (a substitution y for x written as y/x).

The Unification algorithm is listed below as a procedure UNIFY (L1, L2). It returns a
list representing the composition of the substitutions that were performed during the match. An
empty list NIL indicates that a match was found without any substitutions. If the list contains
a single value F, it indicates that the unification procedure failed.

UNIFY (L1, L2)

1. if L1 or L2 is an atom part of same thing do

(a) if L1 or L2 are identical then return NIL
(b) else if L1 is a variable then do
(i) if L1 occurs in L2 then return F else return (L2/L1)
© else if L2 is a variable then do
(i) if L2 occurs in L1 then return F else return (L1/L2)
else return F.
2. If length (L!) is not equal to length (L2) then return F.
3. Set SUBST to NIL
(at the end of this procedure, SUBST will contain all the substitutions used to unify L1 and
L2).

111
4. For I = 1 to number of elements in L1 do

ii) if S = F then return F

iii) if S is not equal to NIL then do
(A) apply S to the remainder of both L1 and L2
(B) SUBST := APPEND (S, SUBST) return SUBST.

Consider a knowledge base containing just two sentences: P(a) and P(b). Does this
knowledge base entail x P(x)? Explain your answer in terms of models.

The knowledge base does not entail x P(x). To show this, we must give a model
where P(a) and P(b) but x P(x) is false. Consider any model with three domain elements,
where a and b refer to the first two elements and the relation referred to by P holds only for
those two elements.

Is the sentence x, y x = y valid? Explain

The sentence x, y x=y is valid. A sentence is valid if it is true in every model. An

existentially quantified sentence is true in a model if it holds under any extended interpretation
in which its variables are assigned to domain elements. According to the standard semantics of
FOL as given in the chapter, every model contains at least one domain element, hence, for any
model, there is an extended interpretation in which x and y are assigned to the first domain
element. In such an interpretation, x=y is true.

What is ontological commitment (what exists in the world) of first order logic?

Ontological commitment means what assumptions language makes about the nature if
x, y [Brother (x, y)
Siblings (x, y)]

Differentiate between propositional and first order predicate logic?

Following are the comparative differences versus first order logic and propositional
logic.

1) Propositional logic is less expressive and do not reflect individual object`s

properties explicitly. First order logic is more expressive and can represent
individual object along with all its properties.
2) Propositional logic cannot represent relationship among objects whereas first
order logic can represent relationship.
3) Propositional logic does not consider generalization of objects where as first
order logic handles generalization.
4) Propositional logic includes sentence letters (A, B, and C) and logical
connectives, but not quantifier. First order logic has the same connectives as

112
 propositional logic, but it also has variables for individual objects, quantifier,
symbols for functions and symbols for relations.

Represent the following sentence in predicate form:

x child(x) sweet(y) likes (x,y).

Illustrate the use of first order logic to represent knowledge. The best way to find usage
of First order logic is through examples. The examples can be taken from some simple domains.
In knowledge representation, a domain is just some part of the world about which we wish to
express some knowledge. 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. For example, we can assert that John is a king and that kings are persons: Where
KB is knowledge base. TELL(KB, x King(x) => Person(x)). We can ask questions of the
knowledge base using AS K. For example, returns true. Questions asked using ASK are called
queries or goals ASK(KB, Person(John)) Will return true. (ASK KBto find whether Jon is a
king) ASK (KB, x person(x)) The kinship domain The first example we consider is the domain
of family relationships, or kinship. This domain includes facts such as "Elizabeth is the mother
of Charles" and "Charles is the father of William7' and rules such as "One's grandmother is the
mother of one's parent." Clearly, the objects in our domain are people. We will have two unary
predicates, Male and Female. Kinship relations-parenthood, brotherhood, marriage, and so on-
will be represented by binary predicates: Parent, Sibling, Brother, Sister, Child, Daughter, Son,
Spouse, Husband, Grandparent, Grandchild, Cousin, Aunt, and Uncle. We will use functions
for Mother and Father.

What are the characteristics of multi agent systems?

Each agent has just incomplete information and is restricted in is capabilities.

The system control is distributed. Data is decentralized. Computation is asynchronous
Multi agent environments are typically open ad have no centralized designer. Multi agent
environments provide an infrastructure specifying communication and interaction
protocols. Multi agent environments have agents that are autonomous and distributed, and may
be self interested or cooperative.

113