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
Examples of Natural Deduction D. Mott ETS, IBM UK Using “Fitch” All pets are happy, so what about “scruffy?” Premises Lines of proof, each applying a natural deduction rule to previous lines Goal In detail Premises All pets are happy scruffy is a pet Goal scruffy is happy cites FORALL elimination -> elimination scruffy is happy QED But … • We can do this already in CE! • More interesting if we want to infer a new rule • Given “All pets are happy” – can we show that if something is unhappy then it is not a pet? • if not happy(X) then not pet(X) • Need to introduce the idea of a subproof first Subproof to show scruffy is not a pet All pets are happy Scruffy is not happy Is scruffy not a pet? SUPPOSE scruffy is a pet New subproof inside main proof We can show that scruffy is happy But we have proved an inconsistency Therefore the supposition is false, i.e. scruffy is not a pet Generalising the subproof SUPPOSE that is some thing, which we will call “c” that is not happy then “c” is not a pet But what “c” actually is is not relevant to the proof, so it works for ALL things So ANY thing that is not happy is not a pet, and we can create a generic rule In CE… • We could use negated information, eg: – it is false that the thing T is a pet • But in the logic problems I am using terms that include a negation: – cannot be wearing • So this new rule might be: – if the thing T is a nonpet then the thing T is an unhappy thing • This requires an additional step in the proof to perform the negation, based on the domain definition of “unhappy” as being the negation of “happy”, etc Could we build a similar system in CE? • In most cases there is a simple correspondance between the natural deduction rules and manipulations that could be made on the CE statements • But in the use of subproofs, it is necessary to manipulate the rationale graphs themselves – given a rationale link between a premise and its conclusion, we could construct a new rule – given a rationale link between a premise and an inconsistency, we could construct the negation of the premise. It might look like…