Automata theory
... also say that ϕ expresses L(ϕ). A language L ⊆ Σ∗ is FO-definable if L = L(ϕ) for some formula ϕ of FO(Σ). The languages of the properties in the example are FO-definable by definition. To get an idea of the expressive power of FO(Σ), we prove a theorem characterizing the FO-definable languages in t ...
... also say that ϕ expresses L(ϕ). A language L ⊆ Σ∗ is FO-definable if L = L(ϕ) for some formula ϕ of FO(Σ). The languages of the properties in the example are FO-definable by definition. To get an idea of the expressive power of FO(Σ), we prove a theorem characterizing the FO-definable languages in t ...
.pdf
... the dummy of (∀x)P . We abbreviate (∀x)P by (x)P (as does Church [2]). An occurrence of individual variable x is bound in formula P iff the occurrence is within a subformula of P of the form (x)Q ; otherwise, the occurrence of x is free in P . Precedence conventions allow the elimination of some pare ...
... the dummy of (∀x)P . We abbreviate (∀x)P by (x)P (as does Church [2]). An occurrence of individual variable x is bound in formula P iff the occurrence is within a subformula of P of the form (x)Q ; otherwise, the occurrence of x is free in P . Precedence conventions allow the elimination of some pare ...
Nicholas Rescher University of Pittsburgh “Peirce`s Epistemic
... A possible objection looms. The process of rational selection implements an evolutionary model in which substantive adequacy is correlative with historical survival. But, of course, people are not as rational as that; they have their moments of aberration and folly. And might not such tendencies sel ...
... A possible objection looms. The process of rational selection implements an evolutionary model in which substantive adequacy is correlative with historical survival. But, of course, people are not as rational as that; they have their moments of aberration and folly. And might not such tendencies sel ...
Probabilistic Theorem Proving - The University of Texas at Dallas
... function of a PKB K is given by Z(K) = x i φi i . The conditional probability P (Q|K) is simply a ratio of two partition functions: P (Q|K) = Z(K ∪ {Q, 0})/Z(K), where Z(K ∪ {Q, 0}) is the partition function of K with Q added as a hard formula. The main idea in PTP is to compute the partition functi ...
... function of a PKB K is given by Z(K) = x i φi i . The conditional probability P (Q|K) is simply a ratio of two partition functions: P (Q|K) = Z(K ∪ {Q, 0})/Z(K), where Z(K ∪ {Q, 0}) is the partition function of K with Q added as a hard formula. The main idea in PTP is to compute the partition functi ...
Lesson 12
... Whenever we create a knowledge based program we use the syntax of the knowledge representation language, we assign a semantics in some way and the reasoning mechanism defines the inference procedures. The semantics will define what entailment means in this representation and we will be interested in ...
... Whenever we create a knowledge based program we use the syntax of the knowledge representation language, we assign a semantics in some way and the reasoning mechanism defines the inference procedures. The semantics will define what entailment means in this representation and we will be interested in ...
Natural Deduction Calculus for Quantified Propositional Linear
... While the propositional quantification does not add any expressiveness to the classical logic QPTL is more expressive than PLTL presenting the same potential of expressiveness as linear-time µ-calculus (linear-time propositional temporal fixpoint logic) [Kaivola (1997)], ETL (propositional linear-ti ...
... While the propositional quantification does not add any expressiveness to the classical logic QPTL is more expressive than PLTL presenting the same potential of expressiveness as linear-time µ-calculus (linear-time propositional temporal fixpoint logic) [Kaivola (1997)], ETL (propositional linear-ti ...
MUltseq: a Generic Prover for Sequents and Equations*
... under consideration – which is always the case when the rules were computed by MUltlog – MUltseq serves as a decision procedure for the validity of sequents and formulas. More interestingly, MUltseq can also be used to decide the consequence relations associated with the logic and the sequent calcul ...
... under consideration – which is always the case when the rules were computed by MUltlog – MUltseq serves as a decision procedure for the validity of sequents and formulas. More interestingly, MUltseq can also be used to decide the consequence relations associated with the logic and the sequent calcul ...
Predicate logic
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
First-order logic;
... Representation: Understand the relationships between different representations of the same information or idea. I ...
... Representation: Understand the relationships between different representations of the same information or idea. I ...
Negative translation - Homepages of UvA/FNWI staff
... It is natural to think of classical logic as an extension of intuitionistic logic as it can be obtained from intuitionistic logic by adding an additional axiom (for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle ϕ ∨ ¬ϕ). However, the opposite point of view makes sense as well: one could also think of intuitio ...
... It is natural to think of classical logic as an extension of intuitionistic logic as it can be obtained from intuitionistic logic by adding an additional axiom (for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle ϕ ∨ ¬ϕ). However, the opposite point of view makes sense as well: one could also think of intuitio ...
Predicate logic - Teaching-WIKI
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
Predicate logic
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
Adding the Everywhere Operator to Propositional Logic (pdf file)
... As mentioned in Sec. 1, a number of complete axiomatizations of C have been given [13, 2, 1, 11, 9]. All of them are similar in nature to the following one, which we take from [9]. Begin with Schematic S5 (see Table 2). Instead of adding inference rule Textual Substitution, add as axioms all formula ...
... As mentioned in Sec. 1, a number of complete axiomatizations of C have been given [13, 2, 1, 11, 9]. All of them are similar in nature to the following one, which we take from [9]. Begin with Schematic S5 (see Table 2). Instead of adding inference rule Textual Substitution, add as axioms all formula ...
chapter 16
... An argument is an ordered list of sentences, one sentence of which we call the conclusion and the others of which we call the premises. A valid argument is an argument in which: necessarily, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premise ...
... An argument is an ordered list of sentences, one sentence of which we call the conclusion and the others of which we call the premises. A valid argument is an argument in which: necessarily, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premise ...
A Note on Assumptions about Skolem Functions
... Modal Logic is an extension of predicate logic with the two operators 2 and 3 [1]. The standard Kripke semantics of normal modal systems interprets the 2-operator as a universal quantification over accessible worlds and the 3-operator as an existential quantification over accessible worlds. This sem ...
... Modal Logic is an extension of predicate logic with the two operators 2 and 3 [1]. The standard Kripke semantics of normal modal systems interprets the 2-operator as a universal quantification over accessible worlds and the 3-operator as an existential quantification over accessible worlds. This sem ...
.pdf
... This method for eliminating axiom schemes does not work in the case of Schematic C of Table 2, because (17) does not preserve C-validity. For example, :2p is C-valid (as proven earlier), but (:2p)ptrue , which is :2true , is not C-valid. Instead, we obtain a sound axiomatization of C that has a nit ...
... This method for eliminating axiom schemes does not work in the case of Schematic C of Table 2, because (17) does not preserve C-validity. For example, :2p is C-valid (as proven earlier), but (:2p)ptrue , which is :2true , is not C-valid. Instead, we obtain a sound axiomatization of C that has a nit ...
Predicate Logic
... We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat is ...
... We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat is ...
03_Artificial_Intelligence-PredicateLogic
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
03_Artificial_Intelligence-PredicateLogic
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
... • We'd like to conclude that Jan will get wet. But each of these sentences would just be a represented by some proposition, say P, Q and R. What relationship is there between these propositions? We can say P /\ Q → R Then, given P /\ Q, we could indeed conclude R. But now, suppose we were told Pat i ...
4 slides/page
... Theorem: An argument is valid iff the conjunction of its premises logically implies the conclusion. Proof: Suppose the argument is valid. We want to show (A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An) ⇒ B is a tautology. • Do we have to try all 2k truth assignments (where k = #primitive propositions in A1 , . . . , An , B). It’ ...
... Theorem: An argument is valid iff the conjunction of its premises logically implies the conclusion. Proof: Suppose the argument is valid. We want to show (A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An) ⇒ B is a tautology. • Do we have to try all 2k truth assignments (where k = #primitive propositions in A1 , . . . , An , B). It’ ...
.pdf
... Precedence conventions allow the elimination of some parentheses. Our order of precedence, with the highest rst, is: substitution operators (see below) the pre x operators negation : and quanti cation (x) _ and ^ ) and ( and and 6 . We use the following abbreviations: Consequence: P ( Q ...
... Precedence conventions allow the elimination of some parentheses. Our order of precedence, with the highest rst, is: substitution operators (see below) the pre x operators negation : and quanti cation (x) _ and ^ ) and ( and and 6 . We use the following abbreviations: Consequence: P ( Q ...
A Brief Introduction to Propositional Logic
... • A formula is valid or a tautology if and only if it is satisfied by every truth assignment. For example, the sentence p ∨ ¬p is valid. • A formula is unsatisfiable or a contradiction if and only if it is not satisfied by any truth assignment. For example,p ∧ ¬p is unsatisfiable. No matter what tru ...
... • A formula is valid or a tautology if and only if it is satisfied by every truth assignment. For example, the sentence p ∨ ¬p is valid. • A formula is unsatisfiable or a contradiction if and only if it is not satisfied by any truth assignment. For example,p ∧ ¬p is unsatisfiable. No matter what tru ...
Tautologies Arguments Logical Implication
... A formula A logically implies B if A ⇒ B is a tautology. Theorem: An argument is valid iff the conjunction of its premises logically implies the conclusion. Proof: Suppose the argument is valid. We want to show (A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An) ⇒ B is a tautology. • Do we have to try all 2k truth assignments (where ...
... A formula A logically implies B if A ⇒ B is a tautology. Theorem: An argument is valid iff the conjunction of its premises logically implies the conclusion. Proof: Suppose the argument is valid. We want to show (A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An) ⇒ B is a tautology. • Do we have to try all 2k truth assignments (where ...
PROVING UNPROVABILITY IN SOME NORMAL MODAL LOGIC
... intransitive chains. Remark. In fact most of the above introduced rules are rather rule schemata, since every number k yields a rule R(k). One can be easily persuaded that these schemata cannot be restricted to some fixed k. For instance, take RK . An easy induction shows that if we restrict RK to s ...
... intransitive chains. Remark. In fact most of the above introduced rules are rather rule schemata, since every number k yields a rule R(k). One can be easily persuaded that these schemata cannot be restricted to some fixed k. For instance, take RK . An easy induction shows that if we restrict RK to s ...
Propositional Logic .
... In other words, ® is a subset of the variables that are assigned true. Equivalently, we can see ® as a mapping from variables to truth values: : Prop {0,1} ...
... In other words, ® is a subset of the variables that are assigned true. Equivalently, we can see ® as a mapping from variables to truth values: : Prop {0,1} ...