Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Jesús Mosterín wikipedia , lookup
Abductive reasoning wikipedia , lookup
Intuitionistic logic wikipedia , lookup
Structure (mathematical logic) wikipedia , lookup
Natural deduction wikipedia , lookup
Propositional formula wikipedia , lookup
Laws of Form wikipedia , lookup
First-order logic wikipedia , lookup
INTLOGS16 Test 2 Prof S Bringsjord TA Rini Palamittam version 0331161200NY Write your name on your answer booklets now. Thank you. As you proceed, label each answer in your answer booklets with the appropriate ‘Qn.’ For Q1, use ‘Q1.(a)’ to label your answer to sub-question (a), etc. In general, strive to write as legibly as possible; thanks! Q1 For each of the following equations, first (i) write down the representation of each formula appearing within the equation as an S-expression, then (ii) give a yes or no answer as to whether the equation is true or not. In addition, (iii) for each of your affirmative verdicts, provide a clear, informal proof that confirms your verdict.1 (a) {∀x(Scared(x) ↔ Small(x)), ∃x¬Scared(x)} ` ∃x¬Small(x) (b) {¬∃x(Llama(x) ∧ Small(x)), ∀x(Small(x) ∨ Medium(x) ∨ Large(x))} ` ∀x(Llama(x) → (Medium(x) ∨ Large(x)) (c) ` ∃x(Llama(x) → ∀yLlama(y)) (d) {∃x∀y(y ∈ x ↔ y 6∈ y)} ` φ ∧ ¬φ Note: ¬(a ∈ a) is of course equivalent to a 6∈ a, and the former should be used in Slate, where as an s-expression it’s (not (\in a a)) (e) {∀z∃x∀y(y ∈ x ↔ (y ∈ z ∧ φ(y)))} ` ψ ∧ ¬ψ. Note: Here, in keeping with the new notation introduced in class, φ(y) is a formula in which y is free. In addition, we stipulate that x is not free in φ(y). Q2 As you know, we have introduced the following numerical quantifiers: ∃=k , ∃≤k , ∃≥k , where of course k ∈ Z + . This allows us for instance to economically represent such statements as “There are exactly 4 dim llamas.”2 However, we haven’t discussed any new inference rules that might make sense for one or more of these new quantifiers (we still only have rules for ∀ and ordinary ∃). Suggest in detail two new valid inference rules that you think makes sense for one or more of the new quantifiers. Q3 Let A be some finite alphabet of symbols {s1 , s2 , . . . , sn }. Professor Jones claims that A ∗ is a set of exactly the same size as the natural numbers N. Is she correct? Prove that your answer is correct. Q4 Suppose that E is a string built by concatenating the symbols that allow well-formed formulas of first-order logic to be built. Such symbols include, of course, the five truth-functional connectives (→, ↔, ∨, ∧, ¬), the existential and universal quantifier, etc. Can one program a Raven-machine to decide whether or not E is in fact a well-formed formula of first-order logic? Rigorously justify your answer. 1 Of course, informal renditions of full proofs constructed in Slate is certainly one foolproof way to proceed with (iii), but it’s not the only way to proceed. 2 This statement would be represented by ∃=4 x (Dim(x) ∧ Llama(x)), which is an instance of this kind of formula: =k ∃ x φ(x). 1