Scribd
Upload
475 views19 pages

First Order Logic

First-order logic extends propositional logic by adding quantifiers such as "for all" and "there exists". It allows reasoning about predicates and relations between objects. Examples show how quantifiers can express statements about people, numbers, and other domains. Equivalence laws help simplify quantified expressions. First-order logic can precisely define mathematical concepts and is useful for representing statements in many fields of study.

Uploaded by

陳鍾誠
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
475 views19 pages

First Order Logic

First-order logic extends propositional logic by adding quantifiers such as "for all" and "there exists". It allows reasoning about predicates and relations between objects. Examples show how quantifiers can express statements about people, numbers, and other domains. Equivalence laws help simplify quantified expressions. First-order logic can precisely define mathematical concepts and is useful for representing statements in many fields of study.

Uploaded by

陳鍾誠
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19

一階邏輯

First-Order Logic

陳鍾誠 2006 年於金門


First-Order Logic
• First-Order Logic

= Propositional Logic

+ For All  ∀

+ Exist  ∃
• “∀” is the FOR∀LL or universal quantifier.

• “∃ ” is the ∃ XISTS or existential quantifier.


Example 1
All people will die
Socrate is a people

Socrate will die

∀x people(x) will-die(x)
people(socrate)

will-die(socrate)
Example 2
A father is a people has son
Johnson is a son of John

John is the father of Johnson

∃ x people(x)∧son(y,x) father(x,y)
son (Johnson, John)

father(John, Johnson)
Example 3
• GT(x,y) : x>y

∀∀x GT(x+1,x)

= GT(1,0) ∧GT(2,1) ∧…
Topic #3 – Predicate Logic

Quantifier Exercise

If R(x,y)=“x relies upon y,” express the following in


unambiguous English:

∀x(∃ y R(x,y))= Everyone has someone to rely on.


There’s a poor overburdened soul whom
∃ y(∀x R(x,y))=
everyone relies upon (including himself)!
∃ x(∀y R(x,y))= There’s some needy person who relies
upon everybody (including himself).
∀y(∃ x R(x,y))=
Everyone has someone who relies upon them.
∀x(∀y R(x,y))=
Everyone relies upon everybody,
(including themselves)!
Natural language is ambiguous!
• “Everybody likes somebody.”
– For everybody, there is somebody they like,
∀ ∀x ∃ y Likes(x,y)
– or, there is somebody (a popular person)
whom everyone likes?
∀ ∃ y ∀x Likes(x,y)
• “Somebody likes everybody.”
– Same problem: Depends on context,
emphasis.
Definition – First-Order Logic
• Universes x, y, z, … are objects.

• Predicates P, Q, R, … are functions


– mapping objects x to propositions P(x).
– Multi-argument predicates P(x, y).

• Quantifiers:
– [∀x P(x)] :≡ “For all x’s, P(x).”
– [∃ x P(x)] :≡ “There is an x such that P(x).”
Quantifier Equivalence Laws

• Definitions of quantifiers: If u.d.=a,b,c,…


∀x P(x) ⇔ P(a) ∧P(b) ∧P(c) ∧…
∃ x P(x) ⇔ P(a) ∨P(b) ∨P(c) ∨…
• From those, we can prove the laws:
∀x P(x) ⇔ ¬∃ x ¬P(x)
∃ x P(x) ⇔ ¬∀x ¬P(x)
• Which propositional equivalence laws can be
used to prove this?
Topic #3 – Predicate Logic

More Equivalence Laws

∀ ∀x ∀y P(x,y) ⇔ ∀y ∀x P(x,y)
∃ x ∃ y P(x,y) ⇔ ∃ y ∃ x P(x,y)

∀ ∀x (P(x) ∧Q(x)) ⇔ (∀x P(x)) ∧(∀x Q(x))


∃ x (P(x) ∨Q(x)) ⇔ (∃ x P(x)) ∨(∃ x Q(x))
More Notational Conventions

• Quantifiers bind as loosely as needed (parenthesis):


∀x ( P(x) ∧Q(x) )
• Consecutive quantifiers of the same type can be combined:
∀x ∀y ∀z P(x,y,z) ⇔ ∀x,y,z P(x,y,z)
– or even ∀xyz P(x,y,z)
• All quantified expressions can be reduced to the canonical
alternating form
∀x1∃ x2∀x3∃ x4… P(x1, x2, x3, x4, …)
Topic #3 – Predicate Logic

Defining New Quantifiers

As per their name, quantifiers can be used to


express that a predicate is true of any given
quantity (number) of objects.
Define ∃ !x P(x) to mean “P(x) is true of exactly
one x in the universe of discourse.”
∃ !x P(x) ⇔ ∃ x (P(x) ∧¬∃ y (P(y) ∧y≠ x))
“There is an x such that P(x), where there is
no y such that P(y) and y is other than x.”
Some Number Theory
Examples
• Let u.d. = the natural numbers 0, 1, 2, …
• “A number x is even, E(x), if and only if it is
equal to 2 times some other number.”
∀x (E(x) ↔ (∃ y x=2y))
• “A number is prime, P(x), iff it’s greater than 1
and it isn’t the product of two non-unity
numbers.”
∀x (P(x) ↔ (x>1 ∧¬∃ yz x=yz ∧y≠ 1 ∧z≠ 1))
Goldbach’s Conjecture (unproven)

Using E(x) and P(x) from previous slide,


∀E(x>2): ∃ P(p),P(q): p+q = x
or, with more explicit notation:
∀x [x>2 ∧E(x)] →
∃ p ∃ q P(p) ∧P(q) ∧p+q = x.
“Every even number greater than 2
is the sum of two primes.”
Calculus Example
• One way of precisely defining the calculus
concept of a limit, using quantifiers:

(lim f ( x) = L) ⇔
x→a

 ∀ε > 0 : ∃δ > 0 : ∀x : 
 
 ( | x − a |< δ ) → ( | f ( x) − L |< ε ) 
Another Example
• Definitions:
– H(x) :≡ “x is human”;
– M(x) :≡ “x is mortal”;
– G(x) :≡ “x is a god”

• Premises:
∀x H(x) → M(x) (“Humans are mortal”)
∀x G(x) → ¬M(x) (“Gods are immortal”).

• Show that No human is a god.


¬∃ x (H(x) ∧G(x))
The Derivation
∀ ∀x H(x)→M(x) and ∀x G(x)→¬M(x).
∀ ∀x ¬M(x)→¬H(x) [Contrapositive.]
∀ ∀x [G(x)→¬M(x)] ∧[¬M(x)→¬H(x)]
∀ ∀x G(x)→¬H(x) [Transitivity of →.]
∀ ∀x ¬G(x) ∨¬H(x) [Definition of →.]
∀ ∀x ¬(G(x) ∧H(x)) [DeMorgan’s law.]
∀ ¬∃ x G(x) ∧H(x) [An equivalence law.]
Conclusion
• First-Order Logic

• Example, Example and more Example…

• Robinson’s Refutation also Works for


First-Order Case.

You might also like