Post on 04-Jan-2016
description
snick
snack
CPSC 121: Models of Computation2013W2
Proof (First Visit)
Steve Wolfman, based on notes by Patrice Belleville, Meghan Allen and others
1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Outline
• Prereqs, Learning Goals, and Quiz Notes
• Prelude: What Is Proof?
• Problems and Discussion– “Prove Your Own Adventure”– Why rules of inference? (advantages + tradeoffs)
– Onnagata, Explore and Critique
• Next Lecture Notes
2
Learning Goals: Pre-Class
By the start of class, you should be able to:– Use truth tables to establish or refute the
validity of a rule of inference.– Given a rule of inference and propositional
logic statements that correspond to the rule’s premises, apply the rule to infer a new statement implied by the original statements.
3
Learning Goals: In-Class
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:– Explore the consequences of a set of
propositional logic statements by application of equivalence and inference rules, especially in order to massage statements into a desired form.
– Critique a propositional logic proof; that is, determine whether or not is valid (and explain why) and judge the applicability of its result to a specific context.
– Devise and attempt multiple different, appropriate strategies for proving a propositional logic statement follows from a list of premises.
4
Where We Are inThe Big Stories
Theory
How do we model computational systems?
Now: Continuing to build the foundation for our proofs. (We’ll get to the level of proof we really need starting with the next unit.)
Hardware
How do we build devices to compute?
Now: Taking a bit of a vacation in lecture!
5
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
Assuming that a and c cannot both be true and that this function produces true:;; Boolean Boolean Boolean Boolean -> Boolean
(define (rearrange-cond? a b c d)
(cond [a b]
[c d]
[else e]))
Prove that the following function also produces true:;; Boolean Boolean Boolean Boolean -> Boolean
(define (rearrange-cond? a b c d)
(cond [c d]
[a b]
[else e]))
6
But first, prove these handy “lemmas”:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
(Reality check: you must be able to do formal proofs. But, as with using equivalence laws to reorganize code, in practice you’ll often reason using proof techniques but without a formal proof.)
NOT a Quiz Note
~p~(p v q)
a.This is valid by generalization (p p v q).b.This is valid because anytime ~p is true, ~(p v q) is also true.c.This is invalid by generalization (p p v q).d.This is invalid because when p = F and q = T, ~p is true but ~(p v q) is false.e.None of these.
10
What does this mean?
We can always substitute something equivalent for a subexpression of a logical expression.
We cannot always apply a rule of inference to just a part of a logical statement.
Therefore, we will only apply rules of inference to complete statements, no matter what!
11
Outline
• Prereqs, Learning Goals, and Quiz Notes
• Prelude: What Is Proof?
• Problems and Discussion– “Prove Your Own Adventure”– Why rules of inference? (advantages + tradeoffs)
– Onnagata, Explore and Critique
• Next Lecture Notes
12
What is Proof?
A rigorous formal argument that unequivocally demonstrates the
truth of a proposition, given the truth of the proof’s premises.
Adapted from MathWorld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Proof.html13
What is Proof?
A rigorous formal argument that unequivocally demonstrates the
truth of a proposition (conclusion), given the truth of the proof’s
premises.
Adapted from MathWorld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Proof.html14
Problem: Meaning of Proof
Let’s say you prove the following:
Premise 1Premise 2 ⁞Premise nConclusion
Can one of the premises be false?
a.No, proofs may not use false premisesb.No, the proof shows that the premises are truec.Yes, but then the conclusion is falsed.Yes, but then we know nothing about the conclusione.Yes, but we still know the conclusion is true
15
Tasting Powerful Proof: Some Things We Might Prove
• We can build a “light that changes state when a switch is flipped” system with any number of switches.
• We can build a combinational circuit matching any truth table.
• We can build any digital logic circuit using nothing but NAND gates.
• We can sort a list by breaking it in half, and then sorting and merging the halves.
• We can find the GCD of two numbers by finding the GCD of the 2nd and the remainder when dividing the 1st by the 2nd.
• Is there any fair way to run elections?• Are there problems that no program can solve?
Meanwhile...16
What Is a Propositional Logic Proof?
An argument in which:(1) each line is a propositional logic statement,(2) each statement is a premise or follows unequivocally by a previously established rule of inference from the truth of previous statements, and (3) the last statement is the conclusion.
A very constrained form of proof, but a good starting point.Interesting proofs will usually come in less structured
packages than propositional logic proofs.17
Outline
• Prereqs, Learning Goals, and Quiz Notes
• Prelude: What Is Proof?
• Problems and Discussion– “Prove Your Own Adventure”– Why rules of inference? (advantages + tradeoffs)
– Onnagata, Explore and Critique
• Next Lecture Notes
18
Prop Logic Proof Problem
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
19
“Prove Your Own Adventure”
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
Which step is the easiest to fill in?
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise[STEP A: near the start] [STEP B: in the middle]
[STEP C: near the end][STEP D: last step]
20
D: Last Step
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise
...~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)~q Specialization (?)
...((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))
...~s~p Modus ponens (3,?)
Why do we want to put ~p at the end?
a.~p is the proof’s conclusionb.~p is the end of the last premisec.every proof ends with ~pd.None of these but some other reasone.None of these because we don’t want it there
21
C: Near the End
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise
...~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)~q Specialization (?)
...((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))
...~s~p Modus ponens (3,?)
Why do we want to put the blue line/justification at the end?
a.~s ~p is the last premiseb.~s ~p is the only premise that mentions ~sc.~s ~p is the only premise that mentions pd.None of these but some other reasone.None of these b/c we don’t want it there
22
A: Near the Start
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise
...~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)~q Specialization (?)
...((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))
...~s~p Modus ponens (3,?)
Why do we want the blue lines/justifications?
a.~(q r) is the first premiseb.~(q r) is a useless premisec.We can’t work directly with a premise with a negation “on the outside”d.Neither the conclusion nor another premise mentions re.None of these
23
B: In the Middle
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise
...~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)~q Specialization (?)
...((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))
...~s~p Modus ponens (3,?)
Why do we want the blue line/justification?
a.(u q) s is the only premise leftb.(u q) s is the only premise that mentions uc.(u q) s is the only premise that mentions s without a negationd.We have no rule to get directly from one side of a biconditional to the othere.None of these
24
Prop Logic Proof Strategies
• Work backwards from the end• Play with alternate forms of premises• Identify and eliminate irrelevant information• Identify and focus on critical information• Alter statements’ forms so they’re easier to
work with• “Step back” from the problem frequently to
think about assumptions you might have wrong or other approaches you could take
And, if you don’t know that what you’re trying to prove follows...switch from proving to disproving and back now and then.
33
Continuing From There
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise4. ~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)5. ~q Specialization (4)6. ((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))7. ?????? Specialization (6)
...~s~p Modus ponens (3,?)
Which direction of goes in step 7?
a.(u q) s because the simple part is on the rightb.(u q) s because the other direction can’t establish ~sc.s (u q) because the simple part is on the leftd.s (u q) because the other direction can’t establish ~se.None of these
34
Aside: What does it mean to “work backward”?Take the conclusion of the proof.
Use a rule in reverse to generate something closer to a statement you already have (like a premise).
37
Finishing Up (1 of 3)
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise4. ~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)5. ~q Specialization (4)6. ((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))7. s (u q) Specialization (6) 8. ???? ????9. ~(u q) ????10. ~s Modus tollens (7, 9)11. ~p Modus ponens (3,10)
We know we needed ~(u q) on line 9 because that’s what we created line 7 for!
Side Note: Can we work directly with a statement with a negation “on the outside”?
38
Finishing Up (1 of 3)
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise4. ~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)5. ~q Specialization (4)6. ((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))7. s (u q) Specialization (6) 8. ???? ????9. ~(u q) ????10. ~s Modus tollens (7, 9)11. ~p Modus ponens (3,10)
We know we needed ~(u q) on line 9 because that’s what we created line 7 for!
Now, how do we get ~(u q)?
Working forward is tricky. Let’s work backward. What is ~(u q) equivalent to? 39
Finishing Up (2 of 3)
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise4. ~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)5. ~q Specialization (4)6. ((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))7. s (u q) Specialization (6) 8. ~u ~q ????9. ~(u q) De Morgan’s (8)10. ~s Modus tollens (7, 9)11. ~p Modus ponens (3,10)
All that’s left is to get to ~u ~q. How do we do it?
40
Finishing Up (3 of 3)
To prove:
~(q r)(u q) s
~s ~p___
~p
1. ~(q r) Premise2. (u q) s Premise3. ~s ~p Premise4. ~q ~r De Morgan’s (1)5. ~q Specialization (4)6. ((u q) s) Bicond (2) (s (u q))7. s (u q) Specialization (6) 8. ~u ~q Generalization (5)9. ~(u q) De Morgan’s (8)10. ~s Modus tollens (7, 9)11. ~p Modus ponens (3,10)
As usual in our slides, we made no mistakes and reached no dead ends. That’s not the way things really go on difficult proofs!
Mistakes and dead ends are part of the discovery process! So, step back now and then and reconsider your assumptions and approach! 41
Outline
• Prereqs, Learning Goals, and Quiz Notes
• Prelude: What Is Proof?
• Problems and Discussion– “Prove Your Own Adventure”– Why rules of inference? (advantages + tradeoffs)
– Onnagata, Explore and Critique
• Next Lecture Notes
42
Limitations of Truth Tables
Why not just use truth tables to prove propositional logic theorems?
a.No reason; truth tables are enough.b.Truth tables scale poorly to large problems.c.Rules of inference and equivalence rules can
prove theorems that cannot be proven with truth tables.
d.Truth tables require insight to use, while rules of inference can be applied mechanically.
43
Limitations of Logical Equivalences
Why not use logical equivalences to prove that the conclusions follow from the premises?
a.No reason; logical equivalences are enough.b.Logical equivalences scale poorly to large
problems.c.Rules of inference and truth tables can prove
theorems that cannot be proven with logical equivalences.
d.Logical equivalences require insight to use, while rules of inference can be applied mechanically.
44
Outline
• Prereqs, Learning Goals, and Quiz Notes
• Prelude: What Is Proof?
• Problems and Discussion– “Prove Your Own Adventure”– Why rules of inference? (advantages + tradeoffs)
– Onnagata: Explore and Critique
• Next Lecture Notes
45
Preparatory Comments
When we apply logic to a domain, we give interpretations for the logical symbols. That interpretation is where we can argue things like “meaning”, “values”, and “moral right”. Within the logical context, we argue purely on the basis of structure and irrefutable manipulations of that structure.
And… statements contradict each other when, taken together, they are logically equivalent to F, such as(a ~a). There is no way for them to be simultaneously true.
46
Problem: Onnagata
Problem: Critique the following argument.
Premise 1: If women are too close to femininity to portray women then men must be too close to masculinity to play men, and vice versa.
Premise 2: And yet, if the onnagata are correct, women are too close to femininity to portray women and yet men are not too close to masculinity to play men.
Conclusion: Therefore, the onnagata are incorrect, and women are not too close to femininity to portray women.
47
Contradictory Premises?
Do premises #1 and #2 contradict each other (i.e., is (premise1 premise2) logically equivalent to F)?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not enough information to tell.
49
Defining the Problem
Does it make sense to use the definition “w = women” for a propositional logic variable w?
a. Yes, in this problem.
b. Yes, but not in this problem.
c. No, not in this problem.
d. No, not in any problem.
50
Translating the Statements
Which of these is an accurate translation of one of the statements?
a.w m
b.(w m) (m w)
c.o (w ~m)
d.~o ~w
51
Contradictory Premises?
So premises #1 and #2 are w m and o (w ~m).
Do premises #1 and #2 contradict each other (i.e., is (premise1 premise2) logically equivalent to F)?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not enough information to tell.
52
Problem: Now, Explore!
Critique the argument by either:
(1) Proving it correct (and commenting on how good the propositional logic model’s fit to the context is).
How do we prove prop logic statements?
(2) Showing that it is an invalid argument.
How do we show an argument is invalid? (Remember the quiz!)
53
Outline
• Prereqs, Learning Goals, and Quiz Notes
• Prelude: What Is Proof?
• Problems and Discussion– “Prove Your Own Adventure”– Why rules of inference? (advantages + tradeoffs)
– Onnagata, Explore and Critique
• Next Lecture Notes
54
Next Lecture Learning Goals: Pre-Class
By the start of class, you should be able to:– Evaluate the truth of statements that include
predicates applied to particular values.– Show predicate logic statements are true by
enumerating examples (i.e., all examples in the domain for a universal or one for an existential).
– Show predicate logic statements are false by enumerating counterexamples (i.e., one counterexample for universals or all in the domain for existentials).
– Translate between statements in formal predicate logic notation and equivalent statements in closely matching informal language (i.e., informal statements with clear and explicitly stated quantifiers).
55
Next Lecture Prerequisites
Review (Epp 4th ed) Chapter 2 and be able to solve any Chapter 2 exercise.
Read Sections 3.1 and 3.3 (skipping the “Negation” sections in 3.3)
Complete the open-book, untimed online quiz.
56
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
Assuming that a and c cannot both be true and that this function produces true:;; Boolean Boolean Boolean Boolean -> Boolean
(define (rearrange-cond? a b c d)
(cond [a b]
[c d]
[else e]))
Prove that the following function also produces true:;; Boolean Boolean Boolean Boolean -> Boolean
(define (rearrange-cond? a b c d)
(cond [c d]
[a b]
[else e]))
57
First, prove these handy “lemmas”:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
Assuming that a and c cannot both be true, and that this function produces true:;; Boolean Boolean Boolean Boolean -> Boolean
(define (rearrange-cond? a b c d)
(cond [a b]
[c d]
[else e]))
We leave the lemmas as an exercise:
1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)
2.p (q r) q (p r)
In prop logic:•~(a b) premise•(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise•…•(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) target conclusion
58
We’ll use our “heuristics” to work forward and backward until we solve the problem.
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.…
4.(c d) “subgoal”
5.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) “subgoal”
6.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 4, 5
59
Lemmas:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
We start by working backward; how de we prove x y? Well, one way is to prove x and also prove y. We’ll break those into two separate subproblems!
Side note: we’ll use the two statements you proved as exercises as “lemmas”: rules we proved for use in this proof. (Want to use them on an assignment / exam? Prove them there!)
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.…
4.(c d) “subgoal”
5.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) “subgoal”
6.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 5
7.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 4, 6
60
Lemmas:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
The second of these subgoals is still huge. We decided to break it into two pieces (and that’s why we went off and proved Lemma 1).
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.…
4.(c d) “subgoal”
5.~c (a b) “subgoal”
6.~c (~a e) “subgoal”
7.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 5, 6
8.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 7
9.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 4, 8
61
Lemmas:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
Now, we can attack those two pieces separately (which feels like it might be the wrong approach to me… but worth a try!)
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.…
5.(c d) “subgoal”
6.~c (a b) “subgoal”
7.~c (~a e) “subgoal”
8.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 6, 7
9.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 8
10.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 5, 9
62
Lemmas:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
I’m out of ideas at the end. I switch to the beginning and play around with premises. (Foreshadowing: I didn’t figure out what to do with this premise until near the end.)
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.…
6.(c d) “subgoal”
7.~c (a b) “subgoal”
8.~c (~a e) “subgoal”
9.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 7, 8
10.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 9
11.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 6, 10
63
Lemmas:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
Let’s try the other premise.
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.…
7.(c d) “subgoal”
8.~c (a b) “subgoal”
9.~c (~a e) “subgoal”
10.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 8, 9
11.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 10
12.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 7, 11
64
Lemmas:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
Continuing with that premise…Hey! We can use our Lemma again!
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.…
8.(c d) “subgoal”
9.~c (a b) “subgoal”
10.~c (~a e) “subgoal”
11.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 9, 10
12.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 11
13.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 8, 12
65
Lemmas:1.p (q r) (p q) (p r)2.p (q r) q (p r)
Continuing with that premise…
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.~a (c d) by SPEC on 6
8.…
9.(c d) “subgoal”
10.~c (a b) “subgoal”
11.~c (~a e) “subgoal”
12.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 10, 11
13.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 12
14.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 9, 13
66
Lemma 2: p (q r) q (p r)
Continuing with that premise…
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.~a (c d) by SPEC on 6
8.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 6
9.…
10.(c d) “subgoal”
11.~c (a b) “subgoal”
12.~c (~a e) “subgoal”
13.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 11, 12
14.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 13
15.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 10, 14
67
AHA!!
Lemma 2: p (q r) q (p r)
Continuing with that premise…
We treated connecting these as its own problem and came up with Lemma 2!
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.~a (c d) by SPEC on 6
8.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 6
9.…
10.(c d) “subgoal”
11.~c (a b) “subgoal”
12.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 8
13.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 11, 12
14.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 13
15.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 10, 14
68
Lemma 2: p (q r) q (p r)
Lemma 2 lets us connect these directly!
Now what. Let’s pause, remind ourselves what our (sub)goals are, and look at what we have.
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.~a (c d) by SPEC on 6
8.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 6
9.…
10.(c d) “subgoal”
11.~c (a b) “subgoal”
12.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 8
13.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 11, 12
14.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 13
15.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 10, 14
69
Hmm..
Lemma 2: p (q r) q (p r)
How do we do something with this? Again, we treated this as a separate problem:
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
Subproblem:
1. a b premise
2.…
3.~c (a b) “subgoal”
70
Now we do our usual. Get rid of , work backward, work forward…
This time, we’ll show you what we did. We broke out the goal and starting point and turned them into a whole other proof problem!
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
Subproblem:
1. a b premise
2.~a b by IMP on 1
3.…
4.c ~a b “subgoal”
5.c (a b) by IMP on 4
6.~c (a b) by IMP on 5
71
That’s about as far as dumping can take us.
But, look at step 2 and step 4. What’s the difference?
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
Subproblem:• a b premise•~a b by IMP on 1•c ~a b by GEN on 2•c (a b) by IMP on 3•~c (a b) by IMP on 4
72
Great! We can always OR on something else.
We did it!
Let’s patch it back into the original proof.
But… could we have done it more easily? Question your solutions!
(Hint: check out line 4. How can you get there?)
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.~a (c d) by SPEC on 6
8.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 6
9.…
10.(c d) “subgoal”
11.c (a b) “subgoal”
12.~c (a b) by IMP on 11
13.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 8
14.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 12, 13
15.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 14
16.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 10, 15
73
Patching in “step 4” of the previous proof. Can it get us back to step 4 of this proof?
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.~a (c d) by SPEC on 6
8.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 6
9.…
10.(c d) “subgoal”
11.c (a b) by GEN on 4
12.~c (a b) by IMP on 11
13.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 8
14.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 12, 13
15.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 14
16.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 10, 15
74
Sure! In one step!
Now what? Only one subgoal left. How does it connect to the top of the proof?
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.~a (c d) by SPEC on 6
8.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 6
9.…
10.(c d) “subgoal”
11.c (a b) by GEN on 4
12.~c (a b) by IMP on 11
13.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 8
14.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 12, 13
15.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 14
16.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 10, 15
75
Hmm…
That works if a is false.
Can we make a false?
What if a is true?
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.a b by SPEC on 2
5.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
6.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 5
7.~a (c d) by SPEC on 6
8.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 6
9.…
10.(c d) “subgoal”
11.c (a b) by GEN on 4
12.~c (a b) by IMP on 11
13.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 8
14.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 12, 13
15.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 14
16.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 10, 15
76
If a is true, then c isn’t. If c’s not true,then c d is true.
Let’s put that in logic!
I looked around for a way to establish ~a but couldn’t. So, I checked what happens if a is true.
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.~a ~c d by GEN on 3
5.a b by SPEC on 2
6.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
7.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 6
8.~a (c d) by SPEC on 7
9.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 7
10.…
11.(c d) “subgoal”
12.c (a b) by GEN on 5
13.~c (a b) by IMP on 12
14.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 9
15.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 13, 14
16.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 15
17.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 11, 16
77
We need to“fabricate” a d.The rest will bejust IMP applications.
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.~a ~c d by GEN on 3
5.~a (c d) by IMP on 4
6.a (c d) by IMP on 5
7.a b by SPEC on 2
8.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
9.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 8
10.~a (c d) by SPEC on 9
11.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 9
12.…
13.(c d) “subgoal”
14.c (a b) by GEN on 7
15.~c (a b) by IMP on 14
16.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 11
17.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 15, 16
18.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 17
19.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 13, 18
78
Now, we put these together,and we’re done!
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
3.~a ~c by DM on 1
4.~a ~c d by GEN on 3
5.~a (c d) by IMP on 4
6.a (c d) by IMP on 5
7.a b by SPEC on 2
8.~a ((c d) (~c e)) by SPEC on 2
9.(~a (c d)) (~a (~c e)) by Lemma 1 on 8
10.~a (c d) by SPEC on 9
11.(~a a) (c d) by CASE on 10, 6
12.T (c d) by NEG on 11
13.(c d) by M.PON on 12, T
14.~a (~c e) by SPEC on 9
15.c (a b) by GEN on 7
16.~c (a b) by IMP on 15
17.~c (~a e) by Lemma 2 on 14
18.(~c (a b)) (~c (~a e))) by CONJ on 16, 17
19.(~c ((a b) (~a e))) Lemma 1 on 18
20.(c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 13, 19
79
(At step 13, no need to separately establish T. T is a “tautology”; it’s always true!)
QED!! Whew!
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
… …
20. (c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 13, 19
80
So, what did that prove?
Technically: that if the conditions on the cond branches are mutually exclusive (cannot both be true at the same time) and if the result of the original version was true, then the version with switched cond branches will also be true.
In fact, if you go back and think carefully about the proof, we can conclude something much bigger without too much more work: “If two conditions on neighboring cond branches are mutually exclusive (and have no ‘side effects’), we can switch those branches without changing the meaning of the program.”
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
… …
20. (c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 13, 19
81
For reference: fruitless directions I tried include changing a b to ~a b, attempting to form the negation of c d, and a bunch of other false starts… all of which helped me build pieces I needed for my final strategy!
You should have lots of scratchwork if you do a problem this large.
Motivating Problem:Changing cond Branches
In prop logic:
1.~(a c) premise
2.(a b) (~a ((c d) (~c e))) premise
… …
20. (c d) (~c ((a b) (~a e))) by CONJ on 13, 19
82
Exercise: For expressions a, b, and c that evaluate to Booleans (with no side effects), we can translate code like: (if a b c)
To logic like this instead of our usual: (a b) (~a c)
Prove that they’re equivalent.
Then, figure out how a cond would similarly translate.
Finally, go back and redo some of our proofs (like the one we just did) with the new representation.
snick
snack
More problems to solve...
(on your own or if we have time)
83
Problem: Who put the cat in the piano?
Hercule Poirot has been asked by Lord Martin to find out who closed the lid of his piano after dumping the cat inside. Poirot interrogates two of the servants, Akilna and Eiluj. One and only one of them put the cat in the piano. Plus, one always lies and one never lies.
Akilna says:– Eiluj did it.– Urquhart paid her $50 to help him study.
Eiluj says:– I did not put the cat in the piano.– Urquhart gave me less than $60 to help him study.
Problem: Whodunit?
84
Problem: Automating Proof
Given:p q
p ~q r(r ~p) s ~p
~r
Problem: What’s everything you can prove?
85
Problem: Canonical Form
A common form for propositional logic expressions, called “disjunctive normal form” or “sum of products form”, looks like this:
(a ~b d) (~c) (~a ~d) (b c d e) ...In other words, each clause is built up of simple
propositions or their negations, ANDed together, and all the clauses are ORed together.
86
Problem: Canonical Form
Problem: Prove that any propositional logic statement can be expressed in disjunctive normal form.
87
Mystery #1
Theorem:
p qq (r s)~r (~t u)p t u
Is this argument valid or invalid?Is whatever u means true?
88
Mystery #2
Theorem:
p
p rp (q ~r)~q ~s s
Is this argument valid or invalid?Is whatever s means true?
89
Mystery #3
Theorem:
q
p mq (r m)m q p
Is this argument valid or invalid?Is whatever p means true?
90
Practice Problem (for you!)
Prove (with truth tables) that hypothetical syllogism is a valid rule of inference:
p qq r p r
91
Practice Problem (for you!)
Prove (with truth tables) whether this is a valid rule of inference:
q
p q p
92
Practice Problem (for you!)
Are the following arguments valid?
This apple is green.If an apple is green, it is sour. This apple is sour.
Sam is not barking.If Sam is barking, then Sam is a dog. Sam is not a dog.
93
Practice Problem (for you!)
Are the following arguments valid?
This shirt is comfortable.If a shirt is comfortable, it’s chartreuse. This shirt is chartreuse.
It’s not cold.If it’s January, it’s cold. It’s not January.
Is valid (as a term) the same as true or correct (as English ideas)?94
More Practice
Meghan is rich.
If Meghan is rich, she will pay your tuition.
Meghan will pay your tuition.
Is this argument valid?Should you bother sending in a check for your
tuition, or is Meghan going to do it?95
Problem: Equivalent Java Programs
Problem: How many valid Java programs are there that do exactly the same thing?
96
Resources: Statements
From the Java language specification, a standard statement is one that can be:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/statements.html#14.597
Resources: Statements
From the Java language specification, a standard statement is one that can be:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/statements.html#14.598
What’s a “Block”?
Back to the Java Language Specification:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/statements.html#14.299
What’s a “Block”?
A block is a sequence of statements, local class declarations and local variable declaration statements within braces.
…
A block is executed by executing each of the local variable declaration statements and other statements in order from first to last (left to right).
100
What’s an “EmptyStatement”
Back to the Java Language Specification:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/statements.html#14.6101
Problem: Validity of Arguments
Problem: If an argument is valid, does that mean its conclusion is true? If an argument is invalid, does that mean its conclusion is false?
102
Problem: Proofs and Contradiction
Problem: Imagine I assume premises x, y, and z and prove F. What can I conclude (besides “false is true if x, y, and z are true”)?
103
Proof CritiqueTheorem: √2 is irrational
Proof: Assume √2 is rational, then...
There’s some integers p and q such that √2 = p/q, and p and q share no factors.
2 = (p/q)2 = p2/q2 and p2 = 2q2
p2 is divisible by 2; so p is divisible by 2.
There’s some integer k such that p = 2k.
q2 = p2/2 = (2k)2/2 = 2k2; so q2 and q are divisible by 2.
p and q do share the factor 2, a contradiction!
√2 is irrational. QED
104
Problem: Comparing Deduction and Equivalence Rules
Problem: How are logical equivalence rules and deduction rules similar and different, in form, function, and the means by which we establish their truth?
105
Problem: Evens and Integers
Problem: Which are there more of, (a) positive even integers, (b) positive integers, or (c) neither?
106