DOCSLIB.ORG

PHIL12A Section Answers, 14 February 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHIL12A Section Answers, 14 February 2011 PHIL12A Section answers, 14 February 2011 Julian Jonker 1 How much do you know? 1. You should understand why a truth table is constructed the way it is: why are the truth values listed in the order they are? In principle, it doesn’t matter how they are listed, but there is a natural way to list them systematically, which we use. (a) My favourite slot machine gives me money if I line up four cherries in a row. When I pull the lever, each of the four displayed items can come up as either a cherry or a banana. How many different combinations can the machine display? List them. This is exactly like listing all possible truth values for four atomic sentences, except with say, cherry for True and banana for False. There are 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 24 = 16 possible combinations. Think of it in the following way: Suppose you were betting on just one item. It could come up as a cherry or banana, so there are two possible ‘combinations’. Now suppose you were betting on two items. The first item can be a cherry, but there are two possible ways for it to be a cherry if we include the possible values of the second item: cherry cherry cherry banana But this is true also if it comes up as a banana. banana cherry banana banana So there are four possible combinations. More particularly, we have 2 × 2 = 22 = 4 possibilities. If we add a third item, then the first item can come up in four different ways: if it comes up as a cherry, then there are two different ways the second item can come up (cherry or banana), and for each way the second item comes up there are two different ways the third item can come up. So all in all there are 2 × 2 × 2 = 23 = 8 possibilities. The same holds for a truth table. If you have n atomic sentences, you will have 2n rows in your truth table. In other words, the number of rows grows exponentially, which is why you will never be asked to do a truth table for more than a handful of atomic sentences! 1 (b) Suppose the machine displays three different items at a time – my goal is to line up three cherries. But each item could be either a cherry, a banana, a palm tree or a robot. How many combinations are possible? It would take a long time to list them all, but convince yourself that there is a way to list them systematically so that you are sure you don’t leave any out. What would the 17th item on your list be? There are 4 × 4 × 4 = 43 = 64 possible combinations. Think of the list as a sort of tree. For the first item, draw four branches for the different possibilities: cherry, banana, palm tree, robot. At the end of the cherry branch, draw another four branches for the possible values of the second item (cherry, banana, palm tree, robot), and then do this three more times at the end of each of the other branches. You should now have sixteen end points. At the end of each end point, draw four branches for the possible values of the third item. All in all you should have 64 end points now, which you could number if you wish. If you drew the branches in the order I mentioned them here (you didn’t have to, but you should have stuck with some kind of order), your 17th possibility would have been: banana cherry cherry 2. Draw up truth tables for the following sentences, and say whether they are tautologies or not. (a) (A _:B) _ (:A _ B) A B (A _: B) _ (: A _ B) T T TTFT T FTTT T F TTTF T FTTF F T FFFT T TFTT F F FTTF T TFTF (b) (Ex 4.4) :(B ^ :C ^ :B) B C :( B ^ : C ^ : B) T T T TFFTFFT T F T TTTFFFT F T T FFFTFTF F F T FFTFFTF 2 (c) (:A _ (:B _ C)) _ (:(A ^ B) _ C) A B C (: A _ (: B _ C)) _ (: (A ^ B) _ C) T T T FTTFTTT T FTTTTT T T F FTFFTFF F FTTTFF T F T FTTTFTT T TTFFTT T F F FTTTFTF T TTFFTF F T T TFTFTTT T TFFTTT F T F TFTFTFF T TFFTTF F F T TFTTFTT T TFFFTT F F F TFTTFTF T TFFFTF (d) (Ex 4.6) :[:A _:(B ^ C) _ (A ^ B)] A B C :[ : A _: (B ^ C) _ (A ^ B)] T T T F FTFFTTTTTTT T T F F FTTTTFFTTTT T F T F FTTTFFTTTFF T F F F FTTTFFFTTFF F T T F TFTFTTTTFFT F T F F TFTTTFFTFFT F F T F TFTTFFTTFFF F F F F TFTTFFFTFFF 2 Something slightly harder, if there’s time. A sentence S is tautological if and only if every row of its truth table assigns True to S. S is logically necessary if and only if it is true in every logically possible circumstance. S is TW-necessary if and only it is true in every world that could possibly be constructed in Tarski’s World. 1. Is the following sentence a tautology? ‘It is not the case that both all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, otherwise Socrates is mortal.’ Is it logically necessary? The sentence is logically necessary, since there is no possible world in which it is false. There may be some possible worlds in which Socrates is mortal, and in that case the sentence is true. In the other worlds, at least one of the following must be true: not all men are mortal (since Socrates isn’t), or Socrates isn’t a man and isn’t mortal like them. So in these cases the sentence is true. Now consider whether the sentence is a tautology or not. The atomic sentences are: ‘all men are mortal’, ‘Socrates is a man’, and ‘Socrates is mortal’, and they are combined by the connectives :, ^ and _. So we 3 could abbreviate the sentence in the following way: :(P ^ Q) _ R, where P stands for ‘all men are mortal’, Q stands for ‘Socrates is a man’, and R stands for ‘Socrates is mortal’. This sentence is not a tautology, as drawing up a truth table will show. The moral of the story is that our truth table method is not fine-grained enough to capture the meanings of predicates and names. There is logical structure embedded within the atomic sentences that cannot be captured using truth tables. (In fact, many logic textbooks teach logic in two stages: propositional logic, dealing only with complex sentences made up of atomic sentences connected by truth-functional connectives; and predicate logic, which allows you to get into the structure of atomic sentences by working with predicates, names and quantifiers. Truth tables are taught in propositional logic, but drop out of the picture with predicate logic.) 2. Name at least two sentences that are logically necessary but not tautological. For example: (a) All bachelors are unmarried men. (b) There are infinitely many prime numbers. 3. Name at least two sentences that are TW-necessary but not logically necessary. For example: (a) Cube(a) _ Tet(a) _ Dodec(a) (b) (Large(a) ^ Large(b)) ^ :Adjoins(a,b) 4. For each of the following, determine whether the sentence is a tautology, a logical necessity, or a TW necessity. (a) a=b _ b=c _ c=c This is not a necessity of any sort, though it is logically possible. (b) BackOf(a,b) _:BackOf(a,b) This is a tautology, and therefore also a logical necessity and a TW necessity. (c) :(Cube(b) ^ Cube(e)) _ Cube(b) A truth table shows that this is a tautology, and therefore also a logical necessity and a TW necessity. (d) :(Cube(b) ^ Cube(e)) _ SameShape(b,e) This is a TW necessity, since in Tarski’s World there are one of two possibilities: either b and e are the same kind of block, for example they are both tetrahedrons or they are both cubes, in which case the sentence is true; or they are different shapes. But if they are different shapes, then they are certainly not both cubes, which means that the sentence is true. The sentence is not a tautology, as a truth table will show; however it is a logical necessity, as far as I can tell. 4 (e) SameRow(a,b) _:(FrontOf(a,b) _ BackOf(a,b)) This is a TW necessity. Either a and b are in the same row; or it is not the case that either a is in front of b or b is in front of a. I believe this is a logical necessity; it is not a tautology. (f) SameCol(a,b) ^ SameRow(a,b) ^ a=b This is not a necessity of any kind, since it is false if a and b are not in the same place. The following would be a TW necessity: SameCol(a,b) ^ SameRow(a,b) _:(a=b), but it would not be a logical necessity. (Why?) 5. (Based on Ex 4.10) A sentence S is a logically possibility if it is true in some logically possible circumstances. S is a TW-possibility if there is at least one world that can be constructed in Tarski’s World and in which S is true.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logic: Representation and Automated Reasoning
    Logic Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Mechanisms Logic ● Logic as KR ■ Propositional Logic ■ Predicate Logic (predicate Calculus) ● Automated Reasoning ■ Logical inferences ■ Resolution and Theorem-proving Logic ● Logic as KR ■ Propositional Logic ■ Predicate Logic (predicate Calculus) ● Automated Reasoning ■ Logical inferences ■ Resolution and Theorem-proving Propositional Logic ● Symbols: ■ truth symbols: true, false ■ propositions: a statement that is “true” or “false” but not both E.g., P = “Two plus two equals four” Q = “It rained yesterday.” ■ connectives: ~, →, ∧, ∨, ≡ • Sentences - propositions or truth symbols • Well formed formulas (expressions) - sentences that are legally well-formed with connectives E.g., P ∧ R → and P ~ are not wff but P ∧ R → ~ Q is Examples P Q AI is hard but it is interesting P ∧ Q AI is neither hard nor interesting ~P ∧ ~ Q P Q If you don’t do assignments then you will fail P → Q ≡ Do assignments or fail (Prove by truth table) ~ P ∨ Q None or both of P and Q is true (~ P ∧ ~ Q) ∨ (P ∧ Q) ≡ T Exactly one of P and Q is true (~ P ∧ Q) ∨ (P ∧ ~ Q) ≡ T Predicate Logic ● Symbols: • truth symbols • constants: represents objects in the world • variables: represents ranging objects } Terms • functions: represent properties • Predicates: functions of terms with true/false values e.g., bill_residence_city (vancouver) or lives (bill, vancouver) ● Atomic sentences: true, false, or predicates ● Quantifiers: ∀, ∃ ● Sentences (expressions): sequences of legal applications of connectives and quantifiers to atomic
    [Show full text]
  • Boolean Satisfiability Solvers: Techniques and Extensions
    Boolean Satisfiability Solvers: Techniques and Extensions Georg WEISSENBACHER a and Sharad MALIK a a Princeton University Abstract. Contemporary satisfiability solvers are the corner-stone of many suc- cessful applications in domains such as automated verification and artificial intelli- gence. The impressive advances of SAT solvers, achieved by clever engineering and sophisticated algorithms, enable us to tackle Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem instances with millions of variables – which was previously conceived as a hope- less problem. We provide an introduction to contemporary SAT-solving algorithms, covering the fundamental techniques that made this revolution possible. Further, we present a number of extensions of the SAT problem, such as the enumeration of all satisfying assignments (ALL-SAT) and determining the maximum number of clauses that can be satisfied by an assignment (MAX-SAT). We demonstrate how SAT solvers can be leveraged to solve these problems. We conclude the chapter with an overview of applications of SAT solvers and their extensions in automated verification. Keywords. Satisfiability solving, Propositional logic, Automated decision procedures 1. Introduction Boolean Satisfibility (SAT) is the problem of checking if a propositional logic formula can ever evaluate to true. This problem has long enjoyed a special status in computer science. On the theoretical side, it was the first problem to be classified as being NP- complete. NP-complete problems are notorious for being hard to solve; in particular, in the worst case, the computation time of any known solution for a problem in this class increases exponentially with the size of the problem instance. On the practical side, SAT manifests itself in several important application domains such as the design and verification of hardware and software systems, as well as applications in artificial intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Deduction (I) Tautologies, Contradictions And
    D (I) T, & L L October , Tautologies, contradictions and contingencies Consider the truth table of the following formula: p (p ∨ p) () If you look at the final column, you will notice that the truth value of the whole formula depends on the way a truth value is assigned to p: the whole formula is true if p is true and false if p is false. Contrast the truth table of (p ∨ p) in () with the truth table of (p ∨ ¬p) below: p ¬p (p ∨ ¬p) () If you look at the final column, you will notice that the truth value of the whole formula does not depend on the way a truth value is assigned to p. The formula is always true because of the meaning of the connectives. Finally, consider the truth table table of (p ∧ ¬p): p ¬p (p ∧ ¬p) () This time the formula is always false no matter what truth value p has. Tautology A statement is called a tautology if the final column in its truth table contains only ’s. Contradiction A statement is called a contradiction if the final column in its truth table contains only ’s. Contingency A statement is called a contingency or contingent if the final column in its truth table contains both ’s and ’s. Let’s consider some examples from the book. Can you figure out which of the following sentences are tautologies, which are contradictions and which contingencies? Hint: the answer is the same for all the formulas with a single row. () a. (p ∨ ¬p), (p → p), (p → (q → p)), ¬(p ∧ ¬p) b.
    [Show full text]
  • First-Order Logic
    First-Order Logic Chapter 8 1 Outline • Why FOL? • Syntax and semantics of FOL • Using FOL • Wumpus world in FOL • Knowledge engineering in FOL 2 Pros and cons of propositional logic ☺ Propositional logic is declarative ☺ Propositional logic allows partial/disjunctive/negated information – (unlike most data structures and databases) ☺ Propositional logic is compositional: – meaning of B1,1 ∧ P1,2 is derived from meaning of B1,1 and of P1,2 ☺ Meaning in propositional logic is context-independent – (unlike natural language, where meaning depends on context) Propositional logic has very limited expressive power – (unlike natural language) – E.g., cannot say "pits cause breezes in adjacent squares“ • except by writing one sentence for each square 3 First-order logic • Whereas propositional logic assumes the world contains facts, • first-order logic (like natural language) assumes the world contains – Objects: people, houses, numbers, colors, baseball games, wars, … – Relations: red, round, prime, brother of, bigger than, part of, comes between, … – Functions: father of, best friend, one more than, plus, … 4 Syntax of FOL: Basic elements • Constants KingJohn, 2, NUS,... • Predicates Brother, >,... • Functions Sqrt, LeftLegOf,... • Variables x, y, a, b,... • Connectives ¬, ⇒, ∧, ∨, ⇔ • Equality = • Quantifiers ∀, ∃ 5 Atomic sentences Atomic sentence = predicate (term1 ,...,termn) or term = term 1 2 Term = function (term1,..., termn) or constant or variable • E.g., Brother(KingJohn,RichardTheLionheart) > (Length(LeftLegOf(Richard)), Length(LeftLegOf(KingJohn)))
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the Boolean Satisfiability Problem Using the Parallel Paradigm Jury Composition
    Philosophæ doctor thesis Hoessen Benoît Solving the Boolean Satisfiability problem using the parallel paradigm Jury composition: PhD director Audemard Gilles Professor at Universit´ed'Artois PhD co-director Jabbour Sa¨ıd Assistant Professor at Universit´ed'Artois PhD co-director Piette C´edric Assistant Professor at Universit´ed'Artois Examiner Simon Laurent Professor at University of Bordeaux Examiner Dequen Gilles Professor at University of Picardie Jules Vernes Katsirelos George Charg´ede recherche at Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Toulouse Abstract This thesis presents different technique to solve the Boolean satisfiability problem using parallel and distributed architec- tures. In order to provide a complete explanation, a careful presentation of the CDCL algorithm is made, followed by the state of the art in this domain. Once presented, two proposi- tions are made. The first one is an improvement on a portfo- lio algorithm, allowing to exchange more data without loosing efficiency. The second is a complete library with its API al- lowing to easily create distributed SAT solver. Keywords: SAT, parallelism, distributed, solver, logic R´esum´e Cette th`ese pr´esente diff´erentes techniques permettant de r´esoudre le probl`eme de satisfaction de formule bool´eenes utilisant le parall´elismeet du calcul distribu´e. Dans le but de fournir une explication la plus compl`ete possible, une pr´esentation d´etaill´ee de l'algorithme CDCL est effectu´ee, suivi d'un ´etatde l'art. De ce point de d´epart,deux pistes sont explor´ees. La premi`ereest une am´eliorationd'un algorithme de type portfolio, permettant d'´echanger plus d'informations sans perte d’efficacit´e.
    [Show full text]
  • Atomic Sentences
    Symbolic Logic Study Guide: Class Notes 5 1.2. Notes for Chapter 2: Atomic Sentences 1.2.1. The Basic Structure of Atomic Sentences (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5 of the Text) 1. Comparison between simple English sentences and atomic sentences Simple English Sentences Atomic sentences (FOL) (subject-predicate sentences) John is a freshman Freshman (John) John swims. Swim (John) John loves Jenny. Love (John, Jenny) John prefers Jenny to Amy. Prefer (John, Jenny, Amy) John’s mother loves Jenny. Love (mother (John), Jenny) The father of Jenny is angry. Angry (father (Jenny)) John is the brother of Jenny. John = brother (Jenny) [relational identity] 2. Names Definition: Names are individual constants that refer to some fixed individual objects or other. (1) The rule of naming (p. 10) • No empty name. • No multiple references (do not use one name to refer to different objects). • Multiple names: you can name one object by different names. (2) General terms / names: using a predicate, instead of a constant, to represent a general term. For example, John is a student Student (John) [correct] John = student [wrong!!!] 3. Predicates Definition: Predicates are symbols used to denote some property of objects or some relationship between objects. (1) Arity of predicates • Unary predicates--property • Binary predicates Relations • Ternary predicates (2) The predicates used in Tarski’s World: see p. 11. (3) Two rules of predicates: see p.12. 6 Symbolic Logic Study Guide: Class Notes 4. Functions Definition: A function is an individual constant determined by another constant. (1) Comparison with names: • Both refer to some fixed individual objects.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Winnowing Wittgenstein: What's Worth Salvaging from the Wreck Of
    Winnowing Wittgenstein: What’s Worth Salvaging from the Wreck of the Tractatus Peter Simons Trinity College Dublin Abstract Wittgenstein’s Tractatus still harbours valuable lessons for contemporary philosophy, but which ones? Wittgenstein’s long list of things we cannot speak about is set aside, but his insistence that the logical constants do not represent is retained, as is the absolute distinction between names and sentences. We preserve his atomism of elementary sentences but discard the atomism of simple objects in states of affairs. The fundamental harmony between language and the world is rejected: it is the source of much that is wrong in the Tractatus. What remains is a clarified role for items in making elementary sentences true. 1 Introduction Kevin Mulligan has maintained throughout his philosophical career a keen and judicious appreciation of the chief figures of that great philosophical explosion centred on Austria in the 19th and early 20th century. Of these figures, the best-known and most widely influential is Ludwig Wittgenstein.1 Kevin has maintained, quite rightly, that it is impossible to appreciate the extent to which Wittgenstein’s contributions to philosophy are as original as his many admirers contend without a great deal more knowledge of the Central European milieu from which Wittgenstein emerged than the majority of these admirers care to or are prepared to investigate. In this respect the more diffuse and ample later philosophy presents a much greater challenge than the early work which culminated in the Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung.2 The modest extent of the Tractatus and its more limited period of genesis, as well as its relatively crisper form and content, render it a more manageable and ultimately less controversial work than the post-Tractarian writings, whose thrust is even today occasionally obscure, despite more than a half century of frenzied exegesis.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Propositional Logic
    CHAPTER 12 ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ Propositional Logic In this chapter, we introduce propositional logic, an algebra whose original purpose, dating back to Aristotle, was to model reasoning. In more recent times, this algebra, like many algebras, has proved useful as a design tool. For example, Chapter 13 shows how propositional logic can be used in computer circuit design. A third use of logic is as a data model for programming languages and systems, such as the language Prolog. Many systems for reasoning by computer, including theorem provers, program verifiers, and applications in the field of artificial intelligence, have been implemented in logic-based programming languages. These languages generally use “predicate logic,” a more powerful form of logic that extends the capabilities of propositional logic. We shall meet predicate logic in Chapter 14. ✦ ✦ ✦ ✦ 12.1 What This Chapter Is About Section 12.2 gives an intuitive explanation of what propositional logic is, and why it is useful. The next section, 12,3, introduces an algebra for logical expressions with Boolean-valued operands and with logical operators such as AND, OR, and NOT that Boolean algebra operate on Boolean (true/false) values. This algebra is often called Boolean algebra after George Boole, the logician who first framed logic as an algebra. We then learn the following ideas. ✦ Truth tables are a useful way to represent the meaning of an expression in logic (Section 12.4). ✦ We can convert a truth table to a logical expression for the same logical function (Section 12.5). ✦ The Karnaugh map is a useful tabular technique for simplifying logical expres- sions (Section 12.6).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1. Sentential Logic
    CHAPTER 1. SENTENTIAL LOGIC 1. Introduction In sentential logic we study how given sentences may be combined to form more complicated compound sentences. For example, from the sentences 7 is prime, 7 is odd, 2 is prime, 2 is odd, we can obtain the following sentences: • 7 is prime and 7 is odd • 7 is odd and 2 is odd • 7 is odd or 2 is odd • 7 is not odd • If 2 is odd then 2 is prime Of course, this process can be iterated as often as we want, obtaining also: • If 7 is not odd then 2 is odd • If 7 is odd and 2 is odd then 2 is not prime • (7 is odd and 2 is odd) or 2 is prime We have improved on English in the last example by using parentheses to resolve an ambiguity. And, or, not, if . then (or implies) are called (sentential) connectives. Using them we can define more connectives, for example 2 is prime iff 2 is odd can be defined as (If 2 is prime then 2 is odd) and (if 2 is odd then 2 is prime). The truth value of any compound sentence is determined completely by the truth values of its component parts. For example, assuming 2, 7, odd, prime all have their usual meanings then 7 is odd and 2 is odd is false but (7 is odd and 2 is odd) or 2 is prime is true. We will discuss implication later. In the formal system of sentential logic we study in this Chapter, we do not use English sentences, but build the compound sentences from an infinite collection of symbols which we think of as referring to sentences — since these are not built up from other sentences we refer to them as atomic sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic, Proofs
    CHAPTER 1 Logic, Proofs 1.1. Propositions A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false (but not both). For instance, the following are propositions: “Paris is in France” (true), “London is in Denmark” (false), “2 < 4” (true), “4 = 7 (false)”. However the following are not propositions: “what is your name?” (this is a question), “do your homework” (this is a command), “this sentence is false” (neither true nor false), “x is an even number” (it depends on what x represents), “Socrates” (it is not even a sentence). The truth or falsehood of a proposition is called its truth value. 1.1.1. Connectives, Truth Tables. Connectives are used for making compound propositions. The main ones are the following (p and q represent given propositions): Name Represented Meaning Negation p “not p” Conjunction p¬ q “p and q” Disjunction p ∧ q “p or q (or both)” Exclusive Or p ∨ q “either p or q, but not both” Implication p ⊕ q “if p then q” Biconditional p → q “p if and only if q” ↔ The truth value of a compound proposition depends only on the value of its components. Writing F for “false” and T for “true”, we can summarize the meaning of the connectives in the following way: 6 1.1. PROPOSITIONS 7 p q p p q p q p q p q p q T T ¬F T∧ T∨ ⊕F →T ↔T T F F F T T F F F T T F T T T F F F T F F F T T Note that represents a non-exclusive or, i.e., p q is true when any of p, q is true∨ and also when both are true.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A
    Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Statements. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that is either true or false. Here we denote logical statements with capital letters A; B. Logical statements be combined to form new logical statements as follows: Name Notation Conjunction A and B Disjunction A or B Negation not A :A Implication A implies B if A, then B A ) B Equivalence A if and only if B A , B Here are some examples of conjunction, disjunction and negation: x > 1 and x < 3: This is true when x is in the open interval (1; 3). x > 1 or x < 3: This is true for all real numbers x. :(x > 1): This is the same as x ≤ 1. Here are two logical statements that are true: x > 4 ) x > 2. x2 = 1 , (x = 1 or x = −1). Note that \x = 1 or x = −1" is usually written x = ±1. Converses, Contrapositives, and Tautologies. We begin with converses and contrapositives: • The converse of \A implies B" is \B implies A". • The contrapositive of \A implies B" is \:B implies :A" Thus the statement \x > 4 ) x > 2" has: • Converse: x > 2 ) x > 4. • Contrapositive: x ≤ 2 ) x ≤ 4. 1 Some logical statements are guaranteed to always be true. These are tautologies. Here are two tautologies that involve converses and contrapositives: • (A if and only if B) , ((A implies B) and (B implies A)). In other words, A and B are equivalent exactly when both A ) B and its converse are true.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Boolean Satisfiability Problem
    Introduction to the Boolean Satisfiability Problem Spring 2018 CSCE 235H Introduction to Discrete Structures URL: cse.unl.edu/~cse235h All questions: Piazza Satisfiability Study • 7 weeks • 30 min lectures in recitation • ~2 hours of homework per week • Goals: – Exposure to fundamental research in CS – Understand how to model problems – Learn to use SAT solver, MiniSAT CSCE 235 Logic 2 Boolean Satisfiability Problem • Given: – A Boolean formula • Question: – Is there an assignment of truth values to the Boolean variables such that the formula holds true? CSCE 235 Logic 3 Boolean Satisfiability Problem a ( a b) _ ¬ ^ (a a) (b b) _ ¬ ! ^ ¬ CSCE 235 Logic 4 Boolean Satisfiability Problem a ( a b) _ ¬ ^ SATISFIABLE a=true, b=true (a a) (b b) _ ¬ ! ^ ¬ CSCE 235 Logic 5 Boolean Satisfiability Problem a ( a b) _ ¬ ^ SATISFIABLE a=true, b=true (a a) (b b) _ ¬ ! ^ ¬ UNSATISFIABLE Left side of implication is a tautology. Right side of implication is a contradiction. True cannot imply false. CSCE 235 Logic 6 Applications of SAT • Scheduling • Resource allocation • Hardware/software verification • Planning • Cryptography CSCE 235 Logic 7 Conjunctive Normal Form • Variable a, b, p, q, x1,x2 • Literal a, a, q, q, x , x ¬ ¬ 1 ¬ 1 • Clause (a b c) _ ¬ _ • Formula (a b c) _ ¬ _ (b c) ^ _ ( a c) ^ ¬ _ ¬ CSCE 235 Logic 8 Converting to CNF • All Boolean formulas can be converted to CNF • The operators can be rewritten in , , terms of ! $,⊕, ¬ _ ^ • , , can be rearranged using ¬– De Morgan_ ^ ’s Laws – Distributive Laws – Double Negative • May result in exponential
    [Show full text]