Lecture 04 – Part B

Propositional Logic

Dr. Shazzad Hosain

Department of EECS
North South Universtiy

[email protected]
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning

Propositional logic is the simplest logic.

 Syntax

 Semantic

 Entailment
Propositional Logic

Syntax
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
SYNTAX
It defines the allowable sentences.

 Atomic sentences

 Logical constants: true, false

 Propositional symbols: P, Q, S, ...

 Complex sentences

─ they are constructed from simpler sentences using logical connectives

and wrapping parentheses: ( … ).
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning
Logical connectives

1.  (NOT) negation.
2.  (AND) conjunction, operands are conjuncts.
3.  (OR), operands are disjuncts.
4. ⇒ implication (or conditional) A ⇒ B, A is the
premise or antecedent and B is the conclusion or consequent. It
is also known as rule or if-then statement.
5.  if and only if (biconditional).
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
• Logical constants TRUE and FALSE are sentences.

• Propositional symbols P1, P2 etc. are sentences.

• Symbols P1 and negated symbols  P1 are called literals.

• If S is a sentence,  S is a sentence (NOT).

• If S1 and S2 is a sentence, S1  S2 is a sentence (AND).

• If S1 and S2 is a sentence, S1  S2 is a sentence (OR).

• If S1 and S2 is a sentence, S1  S2 is a sentence (Implies).

• If S1 and S2 is a sentence, S1  S2 is a sentence (Equivalent).

Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Backus-Naur Form
A BNF (Backus-Naur Form) grammar of sentences in propositional Logic
is defined by the following rules.

Sentence → AtomicSentence │ComplexSentence

AtomicSentence → True │ False │ Symbol
Symbol → P │ Q │ R …
ComplexSentence →  Sentence
│(Sentence  Sentence)
│(Sentence  Sentence)
│(Sentence  Sentence)
│(Sentence  Sentence)
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Order of precedence

From highest to lowest:

parenthesis ( Sentence )
NOT 
AND 
OR 
Implies 
Equivalent 

Special cases: A  B  C no parentheses are needed

What about A  B  C???
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
• P means “It is hot.”
• Q means “It is humid.”
• R means “It is raining.”
• (P  Q)  R
“If it is hot and humid, then it is raining”
• QP
“If it is humid, then it is hot”
• A better way:
Hot = “It is hot”
Humid = “It is humid”
Raining = “It is raining”
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
 Px,y is true if there is a pit in [x,y]
 Wx,y is true if there is a wumpus
in [x,y], dead or alive
 Bx,y if agent perceives breeze in [x,y]
 Sx,y if agent perceives stench in [x,y]

Our goal is to derive ¬ P1,2

R1 : ¬ P1,1
R2 : B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)
R3 : B2,1  (P1,1  P2,2  P3,1)
True in all wumpus worlds
R4 : ¬ B1,1
R5 : B2,1
Propositional Logic

Semantic
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
SEMANTIC

 SEMANTIC: It defines the rules for determining the truth of a

sentence with respect to a particular model.

The question:
How to compute the truth value of any sentence
given a model?
Truth tables
 Truth tables
The five logical connectives:

A complex sentence:
Propositional Logic

Entailment
 Knoweldge Representation &
Reasoning
KB 
Propositional Inference: A B C (  C)  
B  C)
Enumeration Method False False False False False

(Model checking) False False True False False

False True False False True

 Let    and
False True True True True
KB =(  C) B  C) True False False True True
 Is it the case that KB ╞  ?
True False True False True
 Check all possible models -- 
True True False True True
must be true whenever KB is True True True True True
true.
Knoweldge Representation &
Reasoning
KB 
A B C
(  C)  B  C) 
False False False False False
False False True False
KB ╞Falseα
False True False False True
False True True True True
True False False True True
True False True False True
True True False True True

True True True True True

Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Proof methods

Model checking

 Truth table enumeration (sound and complete for propositional logic).

 For n symbols, the time complexity is O(2n).
►Need a smarter way to do inference

Application of inference rules

 Legitimate (sound) generation of new sentences from old.

 Proof = a sequence of inference rule applications.
Can use inference rules as operators in a standard search algorithm.
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning

Validity and Satisfiability

 A sentence is valid (a tautology) if it is true in all models
e.g., True, A  ¬A, A ⇒ A, (A  (A ⇒ B)) ⇒ B

 Validity is connected to inference via the Deduction Theorem:

KB ╞ α if and only if (KB  α) is valid

 A sentence is satisfiable if it is true in some model

e.g., A  B

 A sentence is unsatisfiable if it is false in all models

e.g., A  ¬A

 Satisfiability is connected to inference via the following:

KB ╞ α if and only if (KB  ¬α) is unsatisfiable
(there is no model for which KB=true and α is false)
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Propositional Logic: Inference rules

An inference rule is sound if the conclusion is true in all

cases where the premises are true.

 Premise
_____
 Conclusion
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Propositional Logic: An inference rule: Modus Ponens

From an implication and the premise of the

implication, you can infer the conclusion.

    Premise
___________
 Conclusion

Example:
“raining implies soggy courts”, “raining”
Infer: “soggy courts”
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Propositional Logic: An inference rule: Modus Tollens

From an implication and the premise of the

implication, you can infer the conclusion.

   ¬  Premise
___________
¬ Conclusion

Example:
“raining implies soggy courts”, “courts not soggy”
Infer: “not raining”
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Propositional Logic: An inference rule: AND elimination
From a conjunction, you can infer any of the
conjuncts.

1 2 …  n Premise

_______________
i Conclusion

 Question: show that Modus Ponens and And Elimination

are sound?
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Propositional Logic: other inference rules

 And-Introduction
1, 2, …, n Premise
_______________
1 2 …  n Conclusion

 Double Negation

 Premise
_______
 Conclusion
 Rules of equivalence can be used as inference rules.
(Tutorial).
 Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Propositional Logic: Equivalence rules

 Two sentences are

logically equivalent iff
they are true in the same
models: α ≡ ß iff α╞ β
and β╞ α.
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Inference and proofs
 Px,y is true if there is a pit in [x,y]
 Wx,y is true if there is a wumpus
in [x,y], dead or alive
 Bx,y if agent perceives breeze in [x,y]
 Sx,y if agent perceives stench in [x,y]

Our goal is to derive ¬ P1,2

R1 : ¬ P1,1
R2 : B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)
R3 : B2,1  (P1,1  P2,2  P3,1)
True in all wumpus worlds
R4 : ¬ B1,1
R5 : B2,1
Inference and proofs
Our goal is to derive ¬ P1,2

R1 : ¬ P1,1
R2 : B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)
R3 : B2,1  (P1,1  P2,2  P3,1)
True in all wumpus worlds
R4 : ¬ B1,1
R5 : B2,1

Apply biconditional elimination to R2

R6 : (B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1))  ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1 )

Inference and proofs Apply and elimination to R6
Our goal is to derive ¬ P1,2

R1 : ¬ P1,1
R2 : B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1) R7 : ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1 )
R3 : B2,1  (P1,1  P2,2  P3,1)
Apply contraposition to R7
True in all wumpus worlds
R4 : ¬ B1,1
R5 : B2,1 R8 : (¬B1,1  ¬ (P1,2  P2,1) )

Apply Modus Ponens and

the percept ¬B1,1
R8 : ¬ (P1,2  P2,1)
Apply biconditional elimination to R2
R9 : ¬ P1,2  ¬ P2,1
We can apply any search algorithms
R6 : (B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1))  ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1 )
Completeness of Inference Algorithms

Search algorithms such as IDS are complete

But if the set of rules are inadequate, for example
If we remove the biconditional rule

The proof would not go through

Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution
 Unit Resolution inference rule:
l1  …  li  …  lk , m

l1  …  li-1  li+1  …  lk

where li and m are complementary literals: m = li

Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution
 Unit Resolution inference rule:

P1,1  P2,2  P3,1,  P2,2

P1,1  P3,1

If there’s a pit in one of [1,1], [2,2] and [3,1], and it’s not in
[2,2], then it’s in [1,1] or [3,1]
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution
 Full resolution inference rule:

l1  …  lk , m1  …  m n

l1 … li-1li+1 …lkm1…mj-1mj+1... mn

where li and mj are complementary literals.

Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution
For simplicity let’s consider clauses of length two:
l1  l2, ¬l2  l3

l1  l3
To derive the soundness of resolution consider the values l2
can take:
• If l2 is True, then since we know that ¬l2  l3 holds, it
must be the case that l3 is True.
• If l2 is False, then since we know that l1  l2 holds, it
must be the case that l1 is True.
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
factoring
Remove multiple copies of literals

A  B, ¬ B  A

A
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution
1. Properties of the resolution rule:
• Sound
• Complete (yields to a complete inference algorithm).

2. The resolution rule forms the basis for a family of

complete inference algorithms.

3. Resolution rule is used to either confirm or refute a

sentence but it cannot be used to enumerate true
sentences.
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution
4. Resolution can be applied only to disjunctions of literals.
How can it lead to a complete inference procedure for
all propositional logic?

5. Any knowledge base can be expressed as a conjunction of

disjunctions (conjunctive normal form, CNF).
E.g., (A  ¬B)  (B  ¬C  ¬D)
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution: Inference procedure:

Example of proof by contradiction

 KB = (B1,1 ⇔ (P1,2  P2,1))  ¬ B1,1

 α = ¬P1,2

convert (KB  ¬α) to CNF and apply IP

 Example: Conversion to CNF
B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1)

1. Eliminate , replacing α  β with (α  β)(β  α).

(B1,1  (P1,2  P2,1))  ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1)

2. Eliminate , replacing α  β with α β.

(B1,1  P1,2  P2,1)  ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1)

3. Move  inwards using de Morgan's rules and double-negation:

(B1,1  P1,2  P2,1)  ((P1,2  P2,1)  B1,1)

4. Apply distributive law ( over ) and flatten:

(B1,1  P1,2  P2,1)  (P1,2  B1,1)  (P2,1  B1,1)
Resolution
 Resolution: inference rule for CNF: sound and complete!
(A  B  C )
( A ) “If A or B or C is true, but not A, then B or C must be true.”

 (B  C )

(A  B  C ) “If A is false then B or C must be true, or if A is true

( A  D  E ) then D or E must be true, hence since A is either true or
false, B or C or D or E must be true.”

 (B  C  D  E )

(A  B )
( A  B )
 Simplification
 (B  B )  B
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution: Inference procedure
6. Inference procedures based on resolution work by using the
principle of proof by contradiction:

To show that KB ╞ α we show that (KB  ¬α) is unsatisfiable

The process: 1. convert KB  ¬α to CNF

2. resolution rule is applied to the resulting clauses.
Resolution example
KB = (B1,1  (P1,2 P2,1))  B1,1
α = P1,2

KB  

True!
False in
all worlds
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution: Inference procedure
Function PL-RESOLUTION(KB,α) returns true or false
Clauses ← the set of clauses in the CNF representation of (KB¬α) ;
New ←{};
Loop Do
For each (Ci Cj ) in clauses do
resolvents ← PL-RESOLVE (Ci Cj );
If resolvents contains the empty clause then return true;
New ← New ∪ resolvents
End for
If New ⊆ Clauses then return false
Clauses ← Clauses ∪ new
End Loop
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Resolution: Inference procedure

 Function PL-RESOLVE (Ci Cj ) applies the resolution rule to

(Ci Cj ).

 The process continues until one of two things happens:

 There are no new clauses that can be added, in which case

KB does not entail α, or
 Two clauses resolve to yield the empty clause, in which
case KB entails α.
Horn Clauses
Horn Clauses
• Resolution can be exponential in space and time.

• If we can reduce all clauses to “Horn clauses” resolution is linear in space and time

A clause with at most 1 positive literal.

e.g. A  B  C

Every Horn clause can be rewritten as an implication with a conjunction of

positive literals in the premises and a single positive literal as a conclusion.
e.g. B  C  A

1 positive literal: definite clause

 0 positive literals: Fact or integrity constraint:
e.g. (A  B )  (A  B  False )

 Forward Chaining and Backward chaining are sound and complete

with Horn clauses and run linear in space and time.
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Inference for Horn clauses
 Horn Form (special form of CNF): disjunction of literals of
which at most one is positive.

KB = conjunction of Horn clauses

Horn clause = propositional symbol; / or
(conjunction of symbols) ⇒ symbol

 Modus Ponens is a natural way to make inference in Horn

KBs
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Inference for Horn clauses
α1, … ,αn, α1  …  αn ⇒ β

 Successive application of modus ponens leads to

algorithms that are sound and complete, and run in
linear time
 Forward chaining
 Idea: fire any rule whose premises are satisfied in the KB,
 add its conclusion to the KB, until query is found

AND gate

OR gate

• Forward chaining is sound and complete for Horn KB

 Forward chaining example

“OR” Gate

“AND” gate
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Forward chaining example
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Inference for Horn clauses: backward chaining

• Idea: work backwards from the query q:

check if q is known already, or prove by backward chaining all
premises of some rule concluding q.

Avoid loops:
check if new subgoal is already on the goal stack
Avoid repeated work: check if new subgoal has already been
proved true, or has already failed
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example

we need P to prove
L and L to prove P.
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Backward chaining example
Forward vs. backward chaining
 FC is data-driven, automatic, unconscious processing,
 e.g., object recognition, routine decisions

 May do lots of work that is irrelevant to the goal

 BC is goal-driven, appropriate for problem-solving,

 e.g., Where are my keys? How do I get into a PhD program?

 Complexity of BC can be much less than linear in size of

KB
Knoweldge Representation & Reasoning
Inference in Wumpus World

Initial KB Some inferences:

Percept Sentences
S1,1 B1,1 Apply Modus Ponens to R1
S2,1  B2,1 Add to KB
S1,2 B1,2
…
W1,1  W  W
2,1 1,2

Environment Knowledge Apply to this AND-Elimination

R1: S1,1 W1,1 W2,1 W1,2
R2: S2,1 W1,1  W2,1  W2,2  W3,1
Add to KB
R3: B1,1  P1,1 P2,1 P1,2 W1,1
R5: B1,2  P1,1 P1,2  P2,2  P1,3 W2,1
... W1,2
 Summary
 Logical agents apply inference to a knowledge base to derive new information and
make decisions.

 Basic concepts of logic:

 Syntax: formal structure of sentences.
 Semantics: truth of sentences wrt models.
 Entailment: necessary truth of one sentence given another.
 Inference: deriving sentences from other sentences.
 Soundness: derivations produce only entailed sentences.
 Completeness: derivations can produce all entailed sentences.

 Truth table method is sound and complete for propositional logic but Cumbersome in
most cases.

 Application of inference rules is another alternative to perform entailment.

References
Chapter 7 of “Artificial
Intelligence: A modern
approach” by Stuart Russell, Peter Norvig.