DOCSLIB.ORG

Predicate Logic: Syntax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Predicate Logic: Syntax Predicate Logic: Syntax Alice Gao Lecture 12 CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 1 / 30 Outline Learning goals Symbols Terms Formulas Parse Trees Revisiting the learning goals CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 2 / 30 Learning goals By the end of this lecture, you should be able to ▶ Define the set of terms inductively. ▶ Define the set of formulas inductively. ▶ Determine whether a variable in a formula is free or bound. ▶ Prove properties of terms and formulas by structural induction. ▶ Draw the parse tree of a formula. CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 3 / 30 The Language of Predicate Logic ▶ Domain: a non-empty set of objects. ▶ Individuals: concrete objects in the domain. ▶ Variables: placeholders for concrete objects in the domain. ▶ Functions: takes objects in the domain as arguments and returns an object of the domain. ▶ Relations: takes objects in the domain as arguments and returns true or false. They describe properties of objects or relationships between objects. ▶ Quantifiers: for how many objects in the domain isthe statement true? CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 4 / 30 Outline Learning goals Symbols Terms Formulas Parse Trees Revisiting the learning goals CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 5 / 30 Predicate Language 퐿 Eight classes of symbols: ▶ Individual symbols: 푎, 푏, 푐. ▶ Relation symbols: 퐹 , 퐺, 퐻. A special equality symbol ≈ ▶ Function symbols: 푓, 푔, ℎ. ▶ Free variable symbols: 푢, 푣, 푤. ▶ Bound variable symbols: 푥, 푦, 푧. ▶ Connective symbols: ¬, ∧, ∨, →, ↔. ▶ Quantifier symbol: ∀, ∃. ▶ Punctuation symbols: ‘(’, ‘)’, and ‘,’ CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 6 / 30 Free and Bound Variables In a formula ∀푥 퐴(푥) or ∃푥 퐴(푥), the scope of a quantifier is the formula 퐴(푥). A quantifier binds its variable within its scope. An occurrence of a variable in a formula ▶ is bound if it lies in the scope of some quantifier of the same variable. ▶ is free, otherwise. CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 7 / 30 Outline Learning goals Symbols Terms Formulas Parse Trees Revisiting the learning goals CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 8 / 30 Two Kinds of Expressions Two kinds of expressions: ▶ A term refers to an object in the domain. ▶ A formula evaluates to 1 or 0. CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 9 / 30 Terms The set of terms Term(퐿) is defined below: 1. An individual symbol 푎 standing alone is a term. 2. A free variable symbol 푢 standing alone is a term. 3. If 푡1, … , 푡푛 are terms and 푓 is an 푛-ary function symbol, then 푓(푡1, … , 푡푛) is a term. 4. Nothing else is a term. CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 10 / 30 Examples of Terms Terms: ▶ 푎, 푏, 푐, 푢, 푣, 푤 ▶ 푓(푏), 푔(푎, 푓(푏)), 푔(푢, 푏), 푓(푔(푓(푢), 푏)) A term with no free variable symbols is called a closed term. Which one(s) of the above are closed terms? CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 11 / 30 CQ: Which expressions are terms? Which of the following expressions is a term? If there are multiple correct answers, choose your favourite one. (A) 푤 (B) 푔(푎, 푢) (C) 퐹 (푓(푢, 푣), 푎) (D) 푓(푢, 푔(푣, 푤), 푎) (E) 푔(푢, 푓(푣, 푤), 푎) Individual symbols: 푎 Relation symbols: 퐹 is a binary relation symbol. Function symbols: 푓 is a binary function symbol and 푔 is a 3-ary function symbol. Free variable symbols: 푢, 푣, 푤. CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 12 / 30 Defining the set of terms inductively The set of terms can be inductively defined as follows: ▶ The domain set 푋: The set of finite sequences of symbols of 퐿 ▶ The core set 퐶: The set of all individual symbols and free variable symbols ▶ The set of operations 푃 : The set of all function symbols CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 13 / 30 Structural induction on terms Theorem: Every term has a property 푃 . Proof by structural induction: ▶ Base cases: The term is an individual symbol. The term is a free variable symbol. ▶ Inductive cases: The term is 푓(푡1, … , 푡푛) where 푓 is an n-ary function and 푡1, ..., 푡푛 are terms. Induction hypotheses: Assume that 푡1, … , 푡푛 all have the property 푃 . We need to show that 푓(푡1, … , 푡푛) has the property 푃 . CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 14 / 30 Outline Learning goals Symbols Terms Formulas Parse Trees Revisiting the learning goals CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 15 / 30 Atomic Formulas The set of atomic formulas Atom(퐿) is defined below: ▶ If 퐹 is an n-ary relation symbol and 푡1, … , 푡푛 (푛 ≥ 1) are terms, then 퐹 (푡1, … , 푡푛) is an atomic formula. ▶ If 푡1, 푡2 are terms, then ≈ (푡1, 푡2) is an atomic formula. ▶ Nothing else is an atomic formula. CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 16 / 30 Examples of Atomic Formulas Terms: ▶ 푎, 푏, 푐, 푢, 푣, 푤 ▶ 푓(푏), 푔(푎, 푓(푏)), 푔(푢, 푏), 푓(푔(푓(푢), 푏)) Atomic formulas: ▶ 퐹 (푎, 푢, 푓(푏), 푓(푤), 푔(푣, 푓(푎))) ▶ ≈ (푏, 푤) CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 17 / 30 Well-Formed Formulas The set of well-formed formulas Form(퐿) is defined below: 1. An atomic formula is a well-formed formula. 2. If 퐴 is a well-formed formula, then (¬퐴) is a well-formed formula. 3. If 퐴 and 퐵 are well-formed formulas and ⋆ is one of ∧, ∨, →, and ↔, then (퐴 ⋆ 퐵) is a well-formed formula. 4. If 퐴(푢) is a well-formed formula and 푥 does not occur in 퐴(푢), then ∀푥 퐴(푥) and ∃푥 퐴(푥) are well-formed formulas. 5. Nothing else is a well-formed formula. CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 18 / 30 Explaining Case 4 of Formulas If 퐴(푢) is a well-formed formula and 푥 does not occur in 퐴(푢), then ∀푥 퐴(푥) and ∃푥 퐴(푥) are well-formed formulas. ▶ 퐴(푢) is a well-formed formula where 푢 is a free variable in the formula. We want to quantify 푢. ▶ In order to do so, we need to choose a symbol for a bound variable, e.g. 푥. We need to make sure that our choice of the bound variable symbol does not already occur in 퐴(푢). CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 19 / 30 Examples for Case 4 ▶ We are allowed to generate the formula ∀푦퐹 (푦, 푦). Start with 퐹 (푢, 푢). If we quantify 푢 by replacing it with 푦, we get ∀푦퐹 (푦, 푦). ▶ We are not allowed to generate the formula ∃푦∀푦퐹 (푦, 푦). Start with ∀푦퐹 (푦, 푦). If we want to add the ∃ quantifier, we will need to choose a bound variable symbol that is not 푦 because 푦 already appears in ∀푦 퐹 (푦, 푦). So, there is no way for us to generate ∃푦∀푦퐹 (푦, 푦). ▶ We are allowed to generate the formula ∃푥퐺(푥) ∨ ∀푥퐻(푥). Start with 퐺(푢) and 퐻(푣) separately. We can quantify 푢 by replacing it with 푥 since 푥 does not appear in 퐺(푢)). We get ∃푥퐺(푥). We can quantify 푣 by replacing it with 푥 since 푥 does not appear in 퐻(푣). We get ∀푥퐻(푥). Connecting the two formulas using ∨, we get ∃푥퐺(푥) ∨ ∀푥퐻(푥). CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 20 / 30 Examples of Formulas Well-Formed Formulas: ▶ 퐹 (푎, 푏), ∀푦 퐹 (푎, 푦), ∃푥∀푦 퐹 (푥, 푦) ▶ 퐹 (푢, 푣), ∃푦 퐹 (푢, 푦) A formula with no free variable symbols is called a closed formula or a sentence. Which formulas above are closed formulas? CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 21 / 30 Determine whether a formula is well-formed Which of the following is a well-formed formula? (A) 푓(푢) → 퐹 (푢, 푣) (B) ∀푥 퐹 (푚, 푓(푥)) (C) 퐹 (푢, 푣) → 퐺(퐺(푢)) (D) 퐺(푚, 푓(푚)) (E) 퐹 (푚, 푓(퐺(푢, 푣))) Individual symbols: 푚. Free Variable Symbols: 푢, 푣. Bound Variable symbols: 푥. Relation symbols: 퐹 and 퐺 are binary relation symbols. Function symbols: 푓 is a unary function. CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 22 / 30 Defining the set of formulas inductively The set of formulas can be inductively defined as follows: ▶ The domain set 푋: The set of finite sequences of symbols of 퐿 ▶ The core set 퐶: The set of all atomic formulas. ▶ The set of operations 푃 : 푓1(푥) = (¬푥) 푓2(푥, 푦) = (푥 ∗ 푦) where ∗ is one of ∧, ∨, →, and ↔. 푓3(퐴(푢)) = ∀푥 퐴(푥), 푓4(퐴(푢)) = ∃푥 퐴(푥) where 푥 does not occur in 퐴(푢). CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 23 / 30 Structural induction on formulas Theorem: Every formula has a property 푃 . Proof by structural induction: ▶ Base cases: The formula is an atomic formula. ▶ Inductive cases: The formula is (¬퐴) where 퐴 is a formula. The formula is (퐴 ∗ 퐵) where 퐴 and 퐵 are formulas and ∗ is a binary connective. The formula is ∀푥 퐴(푥) and ∃푥 퐴(푥) where 퐴(푢) is a formula and 푥 does not occur in 퐴(푢). CS 245 Logic and Computation Fall 2019 24 / 30 Comparing the Definitions of Well-Formed Formulas Let’s compare the set of predicate formulas to the set of propositional formulas. Questions to think about: ▶ Which parts of the two definitions are the same? The cases for negation and binary connectives are the same. ▶ Which parts of the two definitions are different? Atomic formulas are different.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Verifying the Unification Algorithm In
    Verifying the Uni¯cation Algorithm in LCF Lawrence C. Paulson Computer Laboratory Corn Exchange Street Cambridge CB2 3QG England August 1984 Abstract. Manna and Waldinger's theory of substitutions and uni¯ca- tion has been veri¯ed using the Cambridge LCF theorem prover. A proof of the monotonicity of substitution is presented in detail, as an exam- ple of interaction with LCF. Translating the theory into LCF's domain- theoretic logic is largely straightforward. Well-founded induction on a complex ordering is translated into nested structural inductions. Cor- rectness of uni¯cation is expressed using predicates for such properties as idempotence and most-generality. The veri¯cation is presented as a series of lemmas. The LCF proofs are compared with the original ones, and with other approaches. It appears di±cult to ¯nd a logic that is both simple and exible, especially for proving termination. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Overview of uni¯cation 2 3 Overview of LCF 4 3.1 The logic PPLAMBDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 4 3.2 The meta-language ML :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5 3.3 Goal-directed proof :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6 3.4 Recursive data structures ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 7 4 Di®erences between the formal and informal theories 7 4.1 Logical framework :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 8 4.2 Data structure for expressions :::::::::::::::::::::: 8 4.3 Sets and substitutions :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 9 4.4 The induction principle :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 10 5 Constructing theories in LCF 10 5.1 Expressions ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    [Show full text]
  • Logic- Sentence and Propositions
    Sentence and Proposition Sentence Sentence= वा啍य, Proposition= त셍कवा啍य/ प्रततऻप्‍तत=Statement Sentence is the unit or part of some language. Sentences can be expressed in all tense (present, past or future) Sentence is not able to explain quantity and quality. A sentence may be interrogative (प्रश्नवाच셍), simple or declarative (घोषड़ा配म셍), command or imperative (आदेशा配म셍), exclamatory (ववमयतबोध셍), indicative (तनदेशा配म셍), affirmative (भावा配म셍), negative (तनषेधा配म셍), skeptical (संदेहा配म셍) etc. Note : Only indicative sentences (सं셍ेता配म셍तवा啍य) are proposition. Philosophy Dept, E- contents-01( Logic-B.A Sem.III & IV) by Dr Rajendra Kr.Verma 1 All kind of sentences are not proposition, only those sentences are called proposition while they will determine or evaluate in terms of truthfulness or falsity. Sentences are governed by its own grammar. (for exp- sentence of hindi language govern by hindi grammar) Sentences are correct or incorrect / pure or impure. Sentences are may be either true or false. Philosophy Dept, E- contents-01( Logic-B.A Sem.III & IV) by Dr Rajendra Kr.Verma 2 Proposition Proposition are regarded as the material of our reasoning and we also say that proposition and statements are regarded as same. Proposition is the unit of logic. Proposition always comes in present tense. (sentences - all tenses) Proposition can explain quantity and quality. (sentences- cannot) Meaning of sentence is called proposition. Sometime more then one sentences can expressed only one proposition. Example : 1. ऩानीतबरसतरहातहैत.(Hindi) 2. ऩावुष तऩड़तोत (Sanskrit) 3. It is raining (English) All above sentences have only one meaning or one proposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch
    Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch. August 16, 2020 Contents Page 1 Axioms and Formal Systems 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Preliminaries: axioms and formal systems. 3 1.2.1 The formal language of ZF set theory; terms 4 1.2.2 The Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms 7 1.3 Transfinite Recursion 9 1.4 Relativisation of terms and formulae 11 2 Initial segments of the Universe 17 2.1 Singular ordinals: cofinality 17 2.1.1 Cofinality 17 2.1.2 Normal Functions and closed and unbounded classes 19 2.1.3 Stationary Sets 22 2.2 Some further cardinal arithmetic 24 2.3 Transitive Models 25 2.4 The H sets 27 2.4.1 H - the hereditarily finite sets 28 2.4.2 H - the hereditarily countable sets 29 2.5 The Montague-Levy Reflection theorem 30 2.5.1 Absoluteness 30 2.5.2 Reflection Theorems 32 2.6 Inaccessible Cardinals 34 2.6.1 Inaccessible cardinals 35 2.6.2 A menagerie of other large cardinals 36 3 Formalising semantics within ZF 39 3.1 Definite terms and formulae 39 3.1.1 The non-finite axiomatisability of ZF 44 3.2 Formalising syntax 45 3.3 Formalising the satisfaction relation 46 3.4 Formalising definability: the function Def. 47 3.5 More on correctness and consistency 48 ii iii 3.5.1 Incompleteness and Consistency Arguments 50 4 The Constructible Hierarchy 53 4.1 The L -hierarchy 53 4.2 The Axiom of Choice in L 56 4.3 The Axiom of Constructibility 57 4.4 The Generalised Continuum Hypothesis in L.
    [Show full text]
  • Propositional Logic
    Propositional Logic - Review Predicate Logic - Review Propositional Logic: formalisation of reasoning involving propositions Predicate (First-order) Logic: formalisation of reasoning involving predicates. • Proposition: a statement that can be either true or false. • Propositional variable: variable intended to represent the most • Predicate (sometimes called parameterized proposition): primitive propositions relevant to our purposes a Boolean-valued function. • Given a set S of propositional variables, the set F of propositional formulas is defined recursively as: • Domain: the set of possible values for a predicate’s Basis: any propositional variable in S is in F arguments. Induction step: if p and q are in F, then so are ⌐p, (p /\ q), (p \/ q), (p → q) and (p ↔ q) 1 2 Predicate Logic – Review cont’ Predicate Logic - Review cont’ Given a first-order language L, the set F of predicate (first-order) •A first-order language consists of: formulas is constructed inductively as follows: - an infinite set of variables Basis: any atomic formula in L is in F - a set of predicate symbols Inductive step: if e and f are in F and x is a variable in L, - a set of constant symbols then so are the following: ⌐e, (e /\ f), (e \/ f), (e → f), (e ↔ f), ∀ x e, ∃ s e. •A term is a variable or a constant symbol • An occurrence of a variable x is free in a formula f if and only •An atomic formula is an expression of the form p(t1,…,tn), if it does not occur within a subformula e of f of the form ∀ x e where p is a n-ary predicate symbol and each ti is a term.
    [Show full text]
  • First Order Logic and Nonstandard Analysis
    First Order Logic and Nonstandard Analysis Julian Hartman September 4, 2010 Abstract This paper is intended as an exploration of nonstandard analysis, and the rigorous use of infinitesimals and infinite elements to explore properties of the real numbers. I first define and explore first order logic, and model theory. Then, I prove the compact- ness theorem, and use this to form a nonstandard structure of the real numbers. Using this nonstandard structure, it it easy to to various proofs without the use of limits that would otherwise require their use. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 An Introduction to First Order Logic 2 2.1 Propositional Logic . 2 2.2 Logical Symbols . 2 2.3 Predicates, Constants and Functions . 2 2.4 Well-Formed Formulas . 3 3 Models 3 3.1 Structure . 3 3.2 Truth . 4 3.2.1 Satisfaction . 5 4 The Compactness Theorem 6 4.1 Soundness and Completeness . 6 5 Nonstandard Analysis 7 5.1 Making a Nonstandard Structure . 7 5.2 Applications of a Nonstandard Structure . 9 6 Sources 10 1 1 Introduction The founders of modern calculus had a less than perfect understanding of the nuts and bolts of what made it work. Both Newton and Leibniz used the notion of infinitesimal, without a rigorous understanding of what they were. Infinitely small real numbers that were still not zero was a hard thing for mathematicians to accept, and with the rigorous development of limits by the likes of Cauchy and Weierstrass, the discussion of infinitesimals subsided. Now, using first order logic for nonstandard analysis, it is possible to create a model of the real numbers that has the same properties as the traditional conception of the real numbers, but also has rigorously defined infinite and infinitesimal elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Unification: a Multidisciplinary Survey
    Unification: A Multidisciplinary Survey KEVIN KNIGHT Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-3890 The unification problem and several variants are presented. Various algorithms and data structures are discussed. Research on unification arising in several areas of computer science is surveyed, these areas include theorem proving, logic programming, and natural language processing. Sections of the paper include examples that highlight particular uses of unification and the special problems encountered. Other topics covered are resolution, higher order logic, the occur check, infinite terms, feature structures, equational theories, inheritance, parallel algorithms, generalization, lattices, and other applications of unification. The paper is intended for readers with a general computer science background-no specific knowledge of any of the above topics is assumed. Categories and Subject Descriptors: E.l [Data Structures]: Graphs; F.2.2 [Analysis of Algorithms and Problem Complexity]: Nonnumerical Algorithms and Problems- Computations on discrete structures, Pattern matching; Ll.3 [Algebraic Manipulation]: Languages and Systems; 1.2.3 [Artificial Intelligence]: Deduction and Theorem Proving; 1.2.7 [Artificial Intelligence]: Natural Language Processing General Terms: Algorithms Additional Key Words and Phrases: Artificial intelligence, computational complexity, equational theories, feature structures, generalization, higher order logic, inheritance, lattices, logic programming, natural language
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Similarity in the Foundations
    Self-similarity in the Foundations Paul K. Gorbow Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D. in Logic, defended on June 14, 2018. Supervisors: Ali Enayat (primary) Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine (secondary) Zachiri McKenzie (secondary) University of Gothenburg Department of Philosophy, Linguistics, and Theory of Science Box 200, 405 30 GOTEBORG,¨ Sweden arXiv:1806.11310v1 [math.LO] 29 Jun 2018 2 Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Introductiontoageneralaudience . ..... 5 1.2 Introduction for logicians . .. 7 2 Tour of the theories considered 11 2.1 PowerKripke-Plateksettheory . .... 11 2.2 Stratifiedsettheory ................................ .. 13 2.3 Categorical semantics and algebraic set theory . ....... 17 3 Motivation 19 3.1 Motivation behind research on embeddings between models of set theory. 19 3.2 Motivation behind stratified algebraic set theory . ...... 20 4 Logic, set theory and non-standard models 23 4.1 Basiclogicandmodeltheory ............................ 23 4.2 Ordertheoryandcategorytheory. ...... 26 4.3 PowerKripke-Plateksettheory . .... 28 4.4 First-order logic and partial satisfaction relations internal to KPP ........ 32 4.5 Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and G¨odel-Bernays class theory............ 36 4.6 Non-standardmodelsofsettheory . ..... 38 5 Embeddings between models of set theory 47 5.1 Iterated ultrapowers with special self-embeddings . ......... 47 5.2 Embeddingsbetweenmodelsofsettheory . ..... 57 5.3 Characterizations.................................. .. 66 6 Stratified set theory and categorical semantics 73 6.1 Stratifiedsettheoryandclasstheory . ...... 73 6.2 Categoricalsemantics ............................... .. 77 7 Stratified algebraic set theory 85 7.1 Stratifiedcategoriesofclasses . ..... 85 7.2 Interpretation of the Set-theories in the Cat-theories ................ 90 7.3 ThesubtoposofstronglyCantorianobjects . ....... 99 8 Where to go from here? 103 8.1 Category theoretic approach to embeddings between models of settheory .
    [Show full text]
  • Monadic Decomposition
    Monadic Decomposition Margus Veanes1, Nikolaj Bjørner1, Lev Nachmanson1, and Sergey Bereg2 1 Microsoft Research {margus,nbjorner,levnach}@microsoft.com 2 The University of Texas at Dallas [email protected] Abstract. Monadic predicates play a prominent role in many decid- able cases, including decision procedures for symbolic automata. We are here interested in discovering whether a formula can be rewritten into a Boolean combination of monadic predicates. Our setting is quantifier- free formulas over a decidable background theory, such as arithmetic and we here develop a semi-decision procedure for extracting a monadic decomposition of a formula when it exists. 1 Introduction Classical decidability results of fragments of logic [7] are based on careful sys- tematic study of restricted cases either by limiting allowed symbols of the lan- guage, limiting the syntax of the formulas, fixing the background theory, or by using combinations of such restrictions. Many decidable classes of problems, such as monadic first-order logic or the L¨owenheim class [29], the L¨ob-Gurevich class [28], monadic second-order logic with one successor (S1S) [8], and monadic second-order logic with two successors (S2S) [35] impose at some level restric- tions to monadic or unary predicates to achieve decidability. Here we propose and study an orthogonal problem of whether and how we can transform a formula that uses multiple free variables into a simpler equivalent formula, but where the formula is not a priori syntactically or semantically restricted to any fixed fragment of logic. Simpler in this context means that we have eliminated all theory specific dependencies between the variables and have transformed the formula into an equivalent Boolean combination of predicates that are “essentially” unary.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Logic
    Copyright c 1998–2005 by Stephen G. Simpson Mathematical Logic Stephen G. Simpson December 15, 2005 Department of Mathematics The Pennsylvania State University University Park, State College PA 16802 http://www.math.psu.edu/simpson/ This is a set of lecture notes for introductory courses in mathematical logic offered at the Pennsylvania State University. Contents Contents 1 1 Propositional Calculus 3 1.1 Formulas ............................... 3 1.2 Assignments and Satisfiability . 6 1.3 LogicalEquivalence. 10 1.4 TheTableauMethod......................... 12 1.5 TheCompletenessTheorem . 18 1.6 TreesandK¨onig’sLemma . 20 1.7 TheCompactnessTheorem . 21 1.8 CombinatorialApplications . 22 2 Predicate Calculus 24 2.1 FormulasandSentences . 24 2.2 StructuresandSatisfiability . 26 2.3 TheTableauMethod......................... 31 2.4 LogicalEquivalence. 37 2.5 TheCompletenessTheorem . 40 2.6 TheCompactnessTheorem . 46 2.7 SatisfiabilityinaDomain . 47 3 Proof Systems for Predicate Calculus 50 3.1 IntroductiontoProofSystems. 50 3.2 TheCompanionTheorem . 51 3.3 Hilbert-StyleProofSystems . 56 3.4 Gentzen-StyleProofSystems . 61 3.5 TheInterpolationTheorem . 66 4 Extensions of Predicate Calculus 71 4.1 PredicateCalculuswithIdentity . 71 4.2 TheSpectrumProblem . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 75 4.3 PredicateCalculusWithOperations . 78 4.4 Predicate Calculus with Identity and Operations . ... 82 4.5 Many-SortedPredicateCalculus . 84 1 5 Theories, Models, Definability 87 5.1 TheoriesandModels ......................... 87 5.2 MathematicalTheories. 89 5.3 DefinabilityoveraModel . 97 5.4 DefinitionalExtensionsofTheories . 100 5.5 FoundationalTheories . 103 5.6 AxiomaticSetTheory . 106 5.7 Interpretability . 111 5.8 Beth’sDefinabilityTheorem. 112 6 Arithmetization of Predicate Calculus 114 6.1 Primitive Recursive Arithmetic . 114 6.2 Interpretability of PRA in Z1 ....................114 6.3 G¨odelNumbers ............................ 114 6.4 UndefinabilityofTruth. 117 6.5 TheProvabilityPredicate .
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Temporal Logics and Model Checking
    3. Temporal Logics and Model Checking Page Temporal Logics 3.2 Linear Temporal Logic (PLTL) 3.4 Branching Time Temporal Logic (BTTL) 3.8 Computation Tree Logic (CTL) 3.9 Linear vs. Branching Time TL 3.16 Structure of Model Checker 3.19 Notion of Fixpoint 3.20 Fixpoint Characterization of CTL 3.25 CTL Model Checking Algorithm 3.30 Symbolic Model Checking 3.34 Model Checking Tools 3.42 References 3.46 3.1 (of 47) Temporal Logics Temporal Logics • Temporal logic is a type of modal logic that was originally developed by philosophers to study different modes of “truth” • Temporal logic provides a formal system for qualitatively describing and reasoning about how the truth values of assertions change over time • It is appropriate for describing the time-varying behavior of systems (or programs) Classification of Temporal Logics • The underlying nature of time: Linear: at any time there is only one possible future moment, linear behavioral trace Branching: at any time, there are different possible futures, tree-like trace structure • Other considerations: Propositional vs. first-order Point vs. intervals Discrete vs. continuous time Past vs. future 3.2 (of 47) Linear Temporal Logic • Time lines Underlying structure of time is a totally ordered set (S,<), isomorphic to (N,<): Discrete, an initial moment without predecessors, infinite into the future. • Let AP be set of atomic propositions, a linear time structure M=(S, x, L) S: a set of states x: NS an infinite sequence of states, (x=s0,s1,...) L: S2AP labeling each state with the set of atomic propositions in AP true at the state.
    [Show full text]
  • First-Order Logic
    Lecture 14: First-Order Logic 1 Need For More Than Propositional Logic In normal speaking we could use logic to say something like: If all humans are mortal (α) and all Greeks are human (β) then all Greeks are mortal (γ). So if we have α = (H → M) and β = (G → H) and γ = (G → M) (where H, M, G are propositions) then we could say that ((α ∧ β) → γ) is valid. That is called a Syllogism. This is good because it allows us to focus on a true or false statement about one person. This kind of logic (propositional logic) was adopted by Boole (Boolean Logic) and was the focus of our lectures so far. But what about using “some” instead of “all” in β in the statements above? Would the statement still hold? (After all, Zeus had many children that were half gods and Greeks, so they may not necessarily be mortal.) We would then need to say that “Some Greeks are human” implies “Some Greeks are mortal”. Unfortunately, there is really no way to express this in propositional logic. This points out that we really have been abstracting out the concept of all in propositional logic. It has been assumed in the propositions. If we want to now talk about some, we must make this concept explicit. Also, we should be able to reason that if Socrates is Greek then Socrates is mortal. Also, we should be able to reason that Plato’s teacher, who is Greek, is mortal. First-Order Logic allows us to do this by writing formulas like the following.
    [Show full text]
  • First Order Logic (Part I)
    Logic: First Order Logic (Part I) Alessandro Artale Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Faculty of Computer Science http://www.inf.unibz.it/˜artale Descrete Mathematics and Logic — BSc course Thanks to Prof. Enrico Franconi for provoding the slides Alessandro Artale Logic: First Order Logic (Part I) Motivation We can already do a lot with propositional logic. But it is unpleasant that we cannot access the structure of atomic sentences. Atomic formulas of propositional logic are too atomic – they are just statement which may be true or false but which have no internal structure. In First Order Logic (FOL) the atomic formulas are interpreted as statements about relationships between objects. Alessandro Artale Logic: First Order Logic (Part I) Predicates and Constants Let’s consider the statements: Mary is female John is male Mary and John are siblings In propositional logic the above statements are atomic propositions: Mary-is-female John-is-male Mary-and-John-are-siblings In FOL atomic statements use predicates, with constants as argument: Female(mary) Male(john) Siblings(mary,john) Alessandro Artale Logic: First Order Logic (Part I) Variables and Quantifiers Let’s consider the statements: Everybody is male or female A male is not a female In FOL, predicates may have variables as arguments, whose value is bounded by quantifiers: ∀x. Male(x) ∨ Female(x) ∀x. Male(x) → ¬Female(x) Deduction (why?): Mary is not male ¬Male(mary) Alessandro Artale Logic: First Order Logic (Part I) Functions Let’s consider the statement: The father of a person is male In FOL objects of the domain may be denoted by functions applied to (other) objects: ∀x.
    [Show full text]