Artificial Intelligence

Propositional Logic

Anna Fensel

© Copyright 2011 Dieter Fensel and Florian Fischer 1

Where are we?

# Title
1 Introduction
2 Propositional Logic
3 Predicate Logic
4 Reasoning
5 Search Methods
6 CommonKADS
7 Problem-Solving Methods
8 Planning
9 Software Agents
10 Rule Learning
11 Inductive Logic Programming
12 Formal Concept Analysis
13 Neural Networks
14 Semantic Web and Services

2
Outline

• Motivation
• Technical Solution
– Syntax
– Semantics
– Inference
• Illustration by a Larger Example
• Extensions
• Summary
• References

3
MOTIVATION

4 4
Logic and Deduction

• Logic is used to formalize deduction

• Deduction = derivation of true statements (called
conclusions) from statements that are assumed to be
true (called premises)
• Natural language is not precise, so the careless use of
logic can lead to claims that false statements are true, or
to claims that a statement is true, even though its truth
does not necessarily follow from the premises
=> Logic provides a way to talk about truth and correctness in a
rigorous way, so that we can prove things, rather than make
intelligent guesses and just hope they are correct

5
Why Propositional Logic?

• Propositional logic is a good vehicle to introduce

basic properties of logic; used to:
– Associate natural language expressions with
semantic representations
– Evaluate the truth or falsity of semantic
representations relative to a knowledge base
– Compute inferences over semantic representations
• One of the simplest and most common logic
– The core of (almost) all other logics

6
What is Propositional Logic?

• An unambiguous formal language, akin to a

programming language
– Syntax: Vocabulary for expressing concepts without
ambiguity
– Semantics: Connection to what we're reasoning about
• Interpretation - what the syntax means
– Reasoning: How to prove things
• What steps are allowed

7
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

8 8
SYNTAX

9 9
Syntax

• Logical constants: true, false

• Propositional symbols: P, Q, S, ...
• Wrapping parentheses: ( … )
• Atomic formulas: Propositional Symbols or logical constants
• Formulas are either atomic formulas, or can be formed by
combining atomic formulas with the following connectives:
...and [conjunction]

 ...or [disjunction]

→...implies [implication / conditional]

↔..is equivalent [biconditional]

 ...not [negation]

10
Syntax (cont’)

• A sentence (well formed formula) is defined as

follows:
– A symbol is a sentence
– If S is a sentence, then S is a sentence
– If S is a sentence, then (S) is a sentence
– If S and T are sentences, then (S  T), (S  T), (S  T), and (S
↔ T) are sentences
– A sentence results from a finite number of applications of the
above rules

11
Syntax – BNF Grammar

Sentence  AtomicSentence |
ComplexSentence
AtomicSentence  True | False | P | Q | R | ...
ComplexSentence  (Sentence )
| Sentence Connective Sentence
|  Sentence
Connective  ||→|↔

Ambiguities are resolved through precedence    → ↔

or parentheses
e.g.  P  Q  R  S is equivalent to ( P)  (Q  R))  S

12
Syntax – Examples

• P means “It is hot.” •  p  q

• Q means “It is humid.” • (p q)
• R means “It is raining.” • (p  q)  r
• (P  Q)  R • pqr
“If it is hot and humid, then it is raining” • ((( p)  q)  r) (( r)
 p)
• QP
• ( (p  q)  q)  r
“If it is humid, then it is hot”
• (( p)  ( q))  ( r)
• Etc.

13
SEMANTICS

14 14
Semantics

• Interpretations
• Equivalence
• Substitution
• Models and Satisfiability
• Validity
• Logical Consequence (Entailment)
• Theory

15
Semantics – Some Informal Definitions

• Given the truth values of all symbols in a sentence, it can be

“evaluated” to determine its truth value (True or False)
• A model for a KB is a “possible world” (assignment of truth values to
propositional symbols) in which each sentence in the KB is True
• A valid sentence or tautology is a sentence that is True under all
interpretations, no matter what the world is actually like or how the
semantics are defined (example: “It’s raining or it’s not raining”)
• An inconsistent sentence or contradiction is a sentence that is
False under all interpretations (the world is never like what it
describes, as in “It’s raining and it’s not raining”)
• P entails Q, written P ⊧ Q, means that whenever P is True, so is Q;
in other words, all models of P are also models of Q

16
Interpretations

• In propositional logic, truth values are assigned to the

atoms of a formula in order to evaluate the truth value of
the formula
• An assignment is a function
v : P → {T,F}
v assigns a truth value to any atom in a given formula (P
is the set of all propositional letters, i.e. atoms)
Suppose F denotes the set of all propositional formulas.
We can extend an assignment v to a function
v : F → {T,F}
which assigns the truth value v(A) to any formula A in F.
v is called an interpretation.

17
Interpretations (cont’)

• Example:
– Suppose v is an assignment for which
v(p) = F, v(q) = T.
– If A = (¬p → q) ↔ (p V q), what is v(A)?
Solution:
v(A) = v((¬p → q) ↔ (p V q))
= v(¬p → q) ↔ v(p V q)
= (v(¬p) → v(q)) ↔ (v(p) V v(q))
= (¬v(p) → v(q)) ↔ (v(p) V v(q))
= (¬F → T) ↔ (F V T)
= (T → T) ↔ (F V T)
= T↔T
= T

18
Equivalence

• If A,B are formulas are such that

v(A) = v(B)
for all interpretations v, A is (logically) equivalent to B:
A≡B
• Example: ¬p V q ≡ p → q since both formulas are true in
all interpretations except when v(p) = T, v(q) = F and are
false for that particular interpretation
• Caution: ≡ does not mean the same thing as ↔ :
– A ↔ B is a formula (syntax)
– A ≡ B is a relation between two formula (semantics)
Theorem: A ≡ B if and only if A ↔ B is true in every interpretation;
i.e. A ↔ B is a tautology.

19
Equivalence and Substitution – Examples

• Examples of logically equivalent formulas

• Example: Simplify
– Solution:

20
Models and Satisfiability

• A propositional formula A is satisfiable iff v(A) = T in some

interpretation v; such an interpretation is called a model for A.
– A is unsatisfiable (or, contradictory) if it is false in every interpretation
• A set of formulas U = {A1,A2,…,An} is satisfiable iff there exists an
interpretation v such that v(A1) = v(A2) =…= v(An) = T; such an
interpretation is called a model of U.
– U is unsatisfiable if no such interpretation exists
• Relevant properties:
– If U is satisfiable, then so is U − {Ai} for any i = 1, 2,…, n
– If U is satisfiable and B is valid, then U U {B} is also satisfiable
– If U is unsatisfiable and B is any formula, U U {B} is also unsatisfiable
– If U is unsatisfiable and some Ai is valid, then U − {Ai} is also
unsatisfiable

21
Validity

• A is valid (or, a tautology), denoted ⊧ A, iff v(A) = T, for all

interpretations v
• A is not valid (or, falsifiable), denoted ⊭ A if we can find some
interpretation v, such that v(A) = F
• Relationship between validity, satisfiability, falsifiability, and
unsatisfiability:

22
Validity (cont’)

• Examples:
– Valid (tautology):
– Not valid, but satisfiable:
– False (contradiction):
• Theorem:
(a) A is valid if and only if ¬A is unsatisfiable
(b) A is satisfiable if and only if ¬A is falsifiable

23
Logical Consequence (i.e. Entailment)

• Let U be a set of formulas and A a formula. A is a

(logical) consequence of U, if any interpretation v
which is a model of U is also a model for A:
U⊧A
• Example:
If some interpretation v is a model for the set
, it must satisfy

but in this interpretation, we also have

24
Theory

• A set of formulas T is a theory if it is closed under logical

consequence. This means that, for every formula A, if
T ⊧ A, then A is in T
• Let U be a set of formulas. Then, the set of all
consequences of U
T(U) = {A | U ⊧ A}
is called the theory of U.
The formulas in U are called the axioms for the theory
T(U).

25
INFERENCE

26 26
Inference Methods

• Several basic methods for determining whether

a given set of premises propositionally entails a
given conclusion
– Truth Table Method
– Deductive (Proof) Systems
– Resolution

27
Truth Table Method

• One way of determining whether or not a set of premises logically

entails a possible conclusion is to check the truth table for the
logical constants of the language
• This is called the truth table method and can be formalized as
follows:
– Step 1: Starting with a complete truth table for the propositional
constants, iterate through all the premises of the problem, for each
premise eliminating any row that does not satisfy the premise
– Step 2: Do the same for the conclusion
– Step 3: Finally, compare the two tables; If every row that remains in the
premise table, i.e. is not eliminated, also remains in the conclusion
table, i.e. is not eliminated, then the premises logically entail the
conclusion

28
Example

• Simple sentences:
– Amy loves Pat: lovesAmyPat
– Amy loves Quincy: lovesAmyQuincy
– It is Monday: ismonday

• Premises:
– If Amy loves Pat, Amy loves Quincy:
lovesAmyPat  lovesAmyQuincy
– If it is Monday, Amy loves Pat or Quincy:
ismonday lovesAmyPat lovesAmyQuincy
• Question:
– If it is Monday, does Amy love Quincy?
i.e. is ismonday  lovesAmyQuincy entailed by the premises?

29
 Step 1: Truth table for the premises

lovesAmyPat lovesAmyQuincy ismonday lovesAmyPat  ismonday 

lovesAmyQuincy lovesAmyPat
lovesAmyQuinc
y
T T T T T
T T F T T
T F T F T
T F F F T
F T T T T
F T F T T
F F T T F
F F F T T

30
 Step 1: Eliminate non-sat interpretations

lovesAmyPat lovesAmyQuincy ismonday lovesAmyPat  ismonday 

lovesAmyQuincy lovesAmyPat
lovesAmyQuinc
y
T T T T T
T T F T T
T F T F T
T F F F T
F T T T T
F T F T T
F F T T F
F F F T T

31
 Step 2: Truth table for the conclusion

lovesAmyPat lovesAmyQuincy ismonday ismonday  lovesAmyQuincy

T T T T
T T F T
T F T F
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F
F F F T

32
 Step 2: Eliminate non-sat interpretations

lovesAmyPat lovesAmyQuincy ismonday ismonday  lovesAmyQuincy

T T T T
T T F T
T F T F
T F F T
F T T T
F T F T
F F T F
F F F T

33
Step 3: Comparing tables

• Finally, in order to make the determination of logical entailment, we

compare the two rightmost tables and notice that every row
remaining in the premise table also remains in the conclusion table.
– In other words, the premises logically entail the conclusion.
• The truth table method has the merit that it is easy to understand
– It is a direct implementation of the definition of logical entailment.
• In practice, it is awkward to manage two tables, especially since
there are simpler approaches in which only one table needs to be
manipulated
– Validity Checking
– Unsatisfability Checking

34
Validity checking

• Approach: To determine whether a set of sentences

{1,…,n}
logically entails a sentence , form the sentence
(1 …n )
and check that it is valid.
• To see how this method works, consider the previous example and
write the tentative conclusion as shown below.
(lovesAmyPat  lovesAmyQuincy)  (ismonday lovesAmyPat
lovesAmyQuincy) ismonday  lovesAmyQuincy)
• Then, form a truth table for our language with an added column for
this sentence and check its satisfaction under each of the possible
interpretations for our logical constants

35
Unsatisfability Checking

• It is almost exactly the same as the validity checking method, except

that it works negatively instead of positively.
• To determine whether a finite set of sentences {1,…,n} logically entails
a sentence , we form the sentence
(1 …n )
and check that it is unsatisfiable.

• Both the validity checking method and the satisfiability checking method
require about the same amount of work as the truth table method, but
they have the merit of manipulating only one table

36
Example – A truth table

p q r pq pr prq (p  q)  prq (p  q) 

(p  r) (p  r)
 (p  r  q)  (p  r  q)
T T T T T T T T T
T T F T F T T F T
T F T F T T T F T
T F F F F F T F T
F T T T T T T T T
F T F T T T T T T
F F T T T T T T T
F F F T T T T T T

37
Deductive (proof) systems

• Semantic methods for checking logical entailment have the merit of

being conceptually simple; they directly manipulate interpretations of
sentences
• Unfortunately, the number of interpretations of a language grows
exponentially with the number of logical constants.
– When the number of logical constants in a propositional language is large, the
number of interpretations may be impossible to manipulate.
• Deductive (proof) systems provide an alternative way of checking
and communicating logical entailment that addresses this problem
– In many cases, it is possible to create a “proof” of a conclusion from a set of
premises that is much smaller than the truth table for the language;
– Moreover, it is often possible to find such proofs with less work than is necessary
to check the entire truth table

38
Schemata

• An important component in the treatment of proofs is the notion of a

schema
• A schema is an expression satisfying the grammatical rules of our
language except for the occurrence of metavariables in place of
various subparts of the expression.
– For example, the following expression is a pattern with metavariables and .
()
• An instance of a sentence schema is the expression obtained by
substituting expressions for the metavariables.
– For example, the following is an instance of the preceding schema.
p (q p)

39
Rules of Inference

• The basis for proof systems is the use of correct rules of inference
that can be applied directly to sentences to derive conclusions that
are guaranteed to be correct under all interpretations
– Since the interpretations are not enumerated, time and space can often
be saved
• A rule of inference is a pattern of reasoning consisting of:
– One set of sentence schemata, called premises, and
– A second set of sentence schemata, called conclusions
• A rule of inference is sound if and only if, for every instance, the
premises logically entail the conclusions

40
E.g. Modus Ponens (MP)

  p  (q r)
 p
 q r

raining wet (p q) r

raining p q
wet r

wet slippery • I.e. we can substitute for the

wet metavariables complex sentences
slippery • Note that, by stringing together
applications of rules of inference, it is
possible to derive conclusions that cannot
be derived in a single step. This idea of
stringing together rule applications leads
to the notion of a proof.
41
Axiom schemata

• The implication introduction schema (II), together with Modus

Ponens, allows us to infer implications
( )
• The implication distribution schema (ID) allows us to distribute one
implication over another
(())  ((  )  ())
• The contradiction realization schemata (CR) permit us to infer a
sentence if the negation of that sentence implies some sentence
and its negation
()  (( )  )
( )  (( )  )

42
Axiom schemata (cont’)

• The equivalence schemata (EQ) captures the meaning of the

↔operator
(↔ ) ( )
(↔ ) ( )
( ) (( ) (↔ ))
• The meaning of the other operators in propositional logic is captured
in the following axiom schemata
() ↔ ( )
() ↔ ( )
() ↔()
• The above axiom schemata are jointly called the standard axiom
schemata for Propositional Logic
– They all are valid

43
Proofs

• A proof of a conclusion from a set of premises is a sequence of

sentences terminating in the conclusion in which each item is either
(1) a premise,
(2) an instance of an axiom schema, or
(3) the result of applying a rule of inference to earlier items in sequence
• Example:
1. p q Premise
2. q r Premise
3. (q r) (p  (q r)) II
4. p  (q r) MP : 3,2
5. (p  (q r))  (( p q) (p r)) ID
6. (p q) (p  r ) MP : 5,4
7. p r MP : 6,1

44
ILLUSTRATION BY LARGER
EXAMPLE

45 45
Problem Example

• For each of these sets of premises, what relevant conclusion or

conclusions can be drawn? Explain the rules of inference used to obtain
each conclusion from the premises.
(a) “If I eat spicy foods, then I have strange dreams.” “I have strange
dreams if there is thunder while I sleep.” “I did not have strange
dreams.”
(b) “I am dreaming or hallucinating.” “I am not dreaming.” “If I am
hallucinating, I see elephants running down the road.”
(c) “If I work, it is either sunny or partly sunny.” “I worked last Monday or
I worked last Friday.” “It was not sunny on Tuesday.” “It was not partly
sunny on Friday.”

46
Solution (a)

(a) “If I eat spicy foods, then I have strange dreams.” “I have strange dreams if there is
thunder while I sleep.” “I did not have strange dreams.”
• The relevant conclusions are: “I did not eat spicy food” and “There is no thunder
while I sleep”.
• Let the primitive statements be:
– s, ‘I eat spicy foods’
– d, ‘I have strange dreams’
– t, ‘There is thunder while I sleep’
• Then the premises are translated as: s → d, t → d, and ¬d.
• And the conclusions: ¬s, ¬t.
• Steps Reason
1. s→d premise
2. ¬d premise
3. ¬s Modus Tollens to Steps 1 and 2
4. t→d premise
5. ¬t Modus Tollens to Steps 4 and 2.

47
Solution (b)

(b) “I am dreaming or hallucinating.” “I am not dreaming.” “If I am hallucinating, I see

elephants running down the road.”
• The relevant conclusion is: “I see elephants running down the road.”.
• Let the primitive statements be:
– d, ‘I am dreaming’
– h, ‘I am hallucinating’
– e, ‘I see elephants running down the road’
• Then the premises are translated as: d ∨ h, ¬d, and h → e.
• And the conclusion: e.
• Steps Reason
1. d∨h premise
2. ¬d premise
3. h rule of disjunctive syllogism to Steps 1 and 2
4. h→e premise
5. e Modus Ponens to Steps 4 and 3

48
Solution (c)

(c) “If I work, it is either sunny or partly sunny.” “I worked last Monday or I worked last
Friday.” “It was not sunny on Tuesday.” “It was not partly sunny on Friday.”
• There is no single relevant conclusion in this problem, its main difficulty is to to
represent the premises so that one is able infer anything at all. One possible relevant
conclusion is: “It was sunny or partly sunny last Monday or it was sunny last Friday.”.
• Let the primitive statements be:
– wm, ‘I worked last Monday’
– wf , ‘I worked last Friday’
– sm, ‘It was sunny last Monday’
– st, ‘It was sunny last Tuesday’
– sf , ‘It was sunny last Friday’
– pm, ‘It was partly sunny last Monday’
– pf , ‘It was partly sunny last Friday’
• Then the premises are translated as: wm ∨ wf , wm → (sm ∨ pm), wf → (sf ∨ pf ), ¬st,
and ¬pf .
• And the conclusion: sf ∨ sm ∨ pm.

49
Solution (c) – Method 1

• Steps Reason
1. wf → (sf ∨ pf ) premise
2. ¬wf ∨ sf ∨ pf expression for implication
3. ¬pf → (¬wf ∨ sf ) expression for implication
4. ¬pf premise
5. ¬wf ∨ sf modus ponens to Steps 3 and 4
6. wf → sf expression for implication
7. wm ∨ wf premise
8. ¬wm → wf expression for implication
9. ¬wm → sf rule of syllogism to Steps 8 and 6
10. wm ∨ sf expression for implication
11. ¬sf → wm expression for implication
12. wm → (sm ∨ pm) premise
13. ¬sf → (sm ∨ pm) rule of syllogism to Steps 11 and 12
14. sf ∨ sm ∨ pm expression for implication.

50
Solution (c) – Method 2 (Use the rule of resolution)

• Steps Reason
1. wf → (sf ∨ pf ) premise
2. ¬wf ∨ sf ∨ pf expression for implication
3. ¬pf premise
4. ¬wf ∨ sf rule of resolution to Steps 2 and 3
5. wm ∨ wf premise
6. wm ∨ sf rule of resolution to Steps 4 and 5
7. wm → (sm ∨ pm) premise
8. ¬wm ∨ sm ∨ pm expression for implication
9. sf ∨ sm ∨ pm rule of resolution to Steps 7 and 8

51
EXTENSIONS

52 52
Extensions

• Propositional logic is not adequate for formalizing valid arguments

that rely on the internal structure of the propositions involved

• In propositional logic the smallest atoms represent whole

propositions (propositions are atomic)
– Propositional logic does not capture the internal structure of the
propositions
– It is not possible to work with units smaller than a proposition

• Example:
– “A Mercedes Benz is a Car” and “A car drives” are two individual,
unrelated propositions
– We cannot conclude “A Mercedes Benz drives”

53
Extensions

• It is possible to represent everything you want in propositional logic

– But often this is not very efficient

• Basic idea: A proposition is expressed as predicate about (on or

more) objects in the world
• Propositions are predicates and arguments
– I.e. Car(Mercedes Benz).

• The most immediate way to develop a more complex logical

calculus is to introduce rules that are sensitive to more fine-grained
details of the sentences being used
– When the atomic sentences of propositional logic are broken up into
terms, variables, predicates, and quantifiers, they yield first-order
logic, which keeps all the rules of propositional logic and adds some
new ones

54
SUMMARY

55 55
Summary

• Propositional logic is one of the simplest and most

common logic and is the core of (almost) all other logics
– Propositional logic commits only to the existence of facts that
may or may not be the case in the world being represented
– Propositional logic quickly becomes impractical, even for very
small worlds
• This lecture focused on three core aspects of the
propositional logic:
– Syntax: Vocabulary for expressing concepts without ambiguity
– Semantics: Connection to what we're reasoning about
• Interpretation - what the syntax means
– Reasoning: How to prove things
• What steps are allowed

56
REFERENCES

57 57
References

• Mandatory Reading:
– First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proofing (2nd edition)
by Melvin Fitting
• Further Reading:
– Mathematical Logic for Computer Science (2nd edition) by
Mordechai Ben-Ari
• http://www.springer.com/computer/foundations/book/978-1-85233-3
19-5

– Propositional Logic at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/prop-log.htm

• Wikipedia links:
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus

58
Next Lecture

# Title
1 Introduction
2 Propositional Logic
3 Predicate Logic
4 Reasoning
5 Search Methods
6 CommonKADS
7 Problem-Solving Methods
8 Planning
9 Agents
10 Rule Learning
11 Inductive Logic Programming
12 Formal Concept Analysis
13 Neural Networks
14 Semantic Web and Services

59
Questions?

60