Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal...
Transcript of Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal...
![Page 1: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Introduction to LogicHerbrand Logic Proofs
Michael GeneserethComputer Science Department
Stanford University
![Page 2: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Propositional Logic
{m ⇒ p ∨ q, p ⇒ q} ⊨ m ⇒ q?
![Page 3: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Relational Logic
{p(a) ∨ p(b), ∀x.(p(x) ⇒ q(x))} ⊨ ∃x.q(x)?
![Page 4: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Object constants: nBinary relation constants: kFactoids in Herbrand Base: infiniteInterpretations: infinite
Herbrand Logic
![Page 5: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Herbrand Proofs
![Page 6: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Logical Rules of Inference
Negation IntroductionNegation Elimination
And IntroductionAnd Elimination
Or IntroductionOr Elimination
AssumptionImplication Elimination
Biconditional IntroductionBiconditional Elimination
![Page 7: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Universal IntroductionUniversal Elimination
Existential IntroductionExistential Elimination
Domain ClosureInduction (Linear, Tree, Structural) New!!
Rules of Inference for Quantifiers
![Page 8: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
A structured proof of a conclusion from a set of premises is a sequence of (possibly nested) sentences terminating in an occurrence of the conclusion at the top level of the proof. Each step in the proof must be either (1) a premise (at the top level), (2) an assumption, or (3) the result of applying an ordinary or structured rule of inference to earlier items in the sequence (subject to the constraints given above).
If there exists a proof of a sentence φ from a set Δ of premises using the rules of inference in Herbrand, we say that φ is provable from Δ (written Δ ⊢Herbrand φ).
Structured Proof
![Page 9: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Example - Spin
![Page 10: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
On transition, a particle goes from spin zero to spin positive or spin negative and then goes to spin zero on second transition. Show that if it has spin zero, it will have spin zero after two transitions.
Givens: ∀x:(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) | neg(f(x))) ∀x:(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) ∀x:(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x)))
Goal: ∀x:(zero(x) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))))
Problem
![Page 11: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
1. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x))) Premise2. ∀x.(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise3. ∀x.(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise
Proof
![Page 12: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
1. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x))) Premise2. ∀x.(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise3. ∀x.(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise4. zero(x) Assumption
Proof
![Page 13: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
1. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x))) Premise2. ∀x.(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise3. ∀x.(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise4. zero(x) Assumption5. zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) UE: 1
Proof
![Page 14: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
1. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x))) Premise2. ∀x.(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise3. ∀x.(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise4. zero(x) Assumption5. zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) UE: 16. pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) IE: 5, 4
Proof
![Page 15: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x))) Premise2. ∀x.(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise3. ∀x.(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise4. zero(x) Assumption5. zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) UE: 16. pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) IE: 5, 47. pos(f(x)) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))) UE: 28. neg(f(x)) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))) UE: 3
Proof
![Page 16: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
1. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x))) Premise2. ∀x.(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise3. ∀x.(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise4. zero(x) Assumption5. zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) UE: 16. pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) IE: 5, 47. pos(f(x)) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))) UE: 28. neg(f(x)) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))) UE: 39. zero(f(f(x))) OE: 6, 7, 8
Proof
![Page 17: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
1. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x))) Premise2. ∀x.(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise3. ∀x.(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise4. zero(x) Assumption5. zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) UE: 16. pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) IE: 5, 47. pos(f(x)) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))) UE: 28. neg(f(x)) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))) UE: 39. zero(f(f(x))) OE: 6, 7, 8
10. zero(x) ⇒ zero(f(f(x)))) II: 4, 9
Proof
![Page 18: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
1. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x))) Premise2. ∀x.(pos(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise3. ∀x.(neg(x) ⇒ zero(f(x))) Premise4. zero(x) Assumption5. zero(x) ⇒ pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) UE: 16. pos(f(x)) ∨ neg(f(x)) IE: 5, 47. pos(f(x)) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))) UE: 28. neg(f(x)) ⇒ zero(f(f(x))) UE: 39. zero(f(f(x))) OE: 6, 7, 8
10. zero(x) ⇒ zero(f(f(x)))) II: 4, 911. ∀x.(zero(x) ⇒ zero(f(f(x)))) UI: 10
Proof
![Page 19: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Analysis
![Page 20: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
A set of premises Δ logically entails a conclusion ϕ (Δ |= ϕ) if and only if every interpretation that satisfies Δ also satisfies ϕ.
If there exists a proof of a sentence φ from a set Δ of premises using the rules of inference in R, we say that φ is provable from Δ using R (written Δ ⊢R φ).
Logical Entailment and Provability
![Page 21: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
A proof system is sound if and only if every provable conclusion is logically entailed.
If Δ ⊢ φ, then Δ ⊨ φ.
A proof system is complete if and only if every logical conclusion is provable.
If Δ ⊨ φ, then Δ ⊢ φ.
Soundness and Completeness
![Page 22: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Theorem: Fitch is sound and complete for Relational Logic.
Δ |= ϕ if and only if Δ ⊢Fitch φ.
Theorem: Herbrand is sound for Herbrand Logic.
if Δ ⊢Herbrand φ, then Δ |= ϕ.
Theorem: Fitch is not complete for Herbrand Logic.
However, everything that can be proved by Fitch can be proved by Herbrand!
Herbrand Proof System
![Page 23: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
HL is highly expressive.
For example, possible to axiomatize arithmetic as a finite set of axioms.
This is not possible with Relational Logic and in other logics (e.g. First-Order Logic).
Good News
![Page 24: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
The question of unsatisfiability and the question of logical entailment for HL are not even semidecidable.
Bad News
![Page 25: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Diophantine equation:
3x2 = 1
Diophantine equation in Peano Arithmetic:
∃x.∃y.(times(x,x,y) ∧ times(s(s(s(0))),y,s(0)))
Unsolvability Question:
Axioms of Arithmetic ∪ {∃x.∃y.(times(x,x,y) ∧ times(s(s(s(0))),y,s(0)))}
Diophantine Equations
![Page 26: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
It is known that the question of unsolvability of Diophantine equations is not semidecidable.
Since we can represent the question of unsolvability of Diophantine equations in Herbrand Logic, if we could determine the unsatisfiability of sentences in Herbrand Logic, we could answer questions of unsolvability of Diophantine equations.
HL Not Even Semidecidable
![Page 27: Introduction to Logic Herbrand Logic Proofsintrologic.stanford.edu/lectures/lecture_12.pdfUniversal Introduction Universal Elimination Existential Introduction Existential Elimination](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051904/5ff5fd3b586ef230856613dd/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)