L ogics for D ata and K nowledge R epresentation
Post on 01-Jan-2016
37 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
LLogics for DData and KKnowledgeRRepresentation
Modal Logic
Originally by Alessandro Agostini and Fausto GiunchigliaModified by Fausto Giunchiglia, Rui Zhang and Vincenzo Maltese
2
Outline Introduction Syntax Semantics Satisfiability and Validity Kinds of frames Correspondence with FOL
2
Introduction We want to model situations like this one:
1. “Fausto is always happy” circumstances”
2. “Fausto is happy under certain
In PL/ClassL we could have: HappyFausto
In modal logic we have:
1. □ HappyFausto
2. ◊ HappyFausto
As we will see, this is captured through the notion of “possible words” and of “accessibility relation”
3
Syntax We extend PL with two logical modal operators:
□ (box) and ◊ (diamond)
□P : “Box P” or “necessarily P” or “P is necessary true”
◊P : “Diamond P” or “possibly P” or “P is possible”
Note that we define □P = ◊P, i.e. □ is a primitive symbol
The grammar is extended as follows:
<Atomic Formula> ::= A | B | ... | P | Q | ... | ⊥ | ⊤ |
<wff> ::= <Atomic Formula> | ¬<wff> | <wff>∧ <wff> | <wff>∨ <wff> |
<wff> <wff> | <wff> <wff> | □ <wff> | ◊ <wff>
4
Different interpretations
5
Philosophy □P : “P is necessary”
◊P : “P is possible”
Epistemic □aP : “Agent a believes P ” or “Agent a knows P”
Temporal logics □P : “P is always true”
◊P : “P is sometimes true”
Dynamic logics or logics of programs
□aP : “P holds after the program a is executed”
Description logics
□HASCHILDMALE ∀HASCHILD.MALE
◊HASCHILDMALE ∃HASCHILD.MALE
Semantics: Kripke Model A Kripke Model is a triple M = <W, R, I> where:
W is a non empty set of worlds R ⊆ W x W is a binary relation called the accessibility relation I is an interpretation function I: L pow(W) such that to each
proposition P we associate a set of possible worlds I(P) in which P holds
Each w ∈ W is said to be a world, point, state, event, situation, class … according to the problem we model
For "world" we mean a PL model. Focusing on this definition, we can see a Kripke Model as a set of different PL models related by an "evolutionary" relation R; in such a way we are able to represent formally - for example - the evolution of a model in time.
In a Kripke model, <W, R> is called frame and is a relational structure.
6
Semantics: Kripke Model Consider the following situation:
M = <W, R, I>
W = {1, 2, 3, 4}
R = {<1, 2>, <1, 3>, <1, 4>, <3, 2>, <4, 2>}
I(BeingHappy) = {2} I(BeingSad) = {1} I(BeingNormal) = {3, 4}
7
1 2 3
4
BeingHappy
BeingSad
BeingNormal
BeingNormal
Truth relation (true in a world) Given a Kripke Model M = <W, R, I>, a proposition P ∈ LML and a
possible world w ∈ W, we say that “w satisfies P in M” or that “P is satisfied by w in M” or “P is true in M via w”, in symbols:
M, w ⊨ P in the following cases:
1. P atomic w ∈ I(P)
2. P = Q M, w ⊭ Q
3. P = Q T M, w ⊨ Q and M, w ⊨ T
4. P = Q T M, w ⊨ Q or M, w ⊨ T
5. P = Q T M, w ⊭ Q or M, w ⊨ T
6. P = □Q for every w’∈W such that wRw’ then M, w’ ⊨ Q
7. P = ◊Q for some w’∈W such that wRw’ then M, w’ ⊨ Q
NOTE: wRw’ can be read as “w’ is accessible from w via R”
8
Semantics: Kripke Model Consider the following situation:
M = <W, R, I>
W = {1, 2, 3, 4}
R = {<1, 2>, <1, 3>, <1, 4>, <3, 2>, <4, 2>}
I(BeingHappy) = {2} I(BeingSad) = {1} I(BeingNeutral) = {3, 4}
M, 2 ⊨ BeingHappy M, 2 ⊨ BeingSad
M, 4 ⊨ □BeingHappy M, 1 ⊨ ◊BeingHappy M, 1 ⊨ ◊BeingSad
9
1 2 3
4
BeingHappy
BeingSad
BeingNormal
BeingNormal
Satisfiability and Validity Satisfiability
A proposition P ∈ LML is satisfiable in a Kripke model M = <W, R, I> if M, w ⊨ P for all worlds w ∈ W.
We can then write M ⊨ P
Validity
A proposition P ∈ LML is valid if P is satisfiable for all models M (and by varying the frame <W, R>).
We can write ⊨ P
10
Satisfiability Consider the following situation:
M = <W, R, I>
W = {1, 2, 3, 4}
R = {<1, 2>, <2, 2>, <3, 2>, <4, 2>}
I(BeingHappy) = {2} I(BeingSad) = {1} I(BeingNormal) = {3, 4}
M, w ⊨ □BeingHappy for all w ∈ W, therefore □BeingHappy is satisfiable in M.
11
1 2 3
4
BeingHappy
BeingSad
BeingNormal
BeingNormal
Validity Prove that P: □A ◊A is valid
In all models M = <W, R, I>,
(1) □A means that for every w∈W such that wRw’ then M, w’ ⊨ A
(2) ◊A means that for some w∈W such that wRw’ then M, w’ ⊨ A
It is clear that if (1) then (2) in the example
(as we will see this is valid in serial frames)12
1 2
3
A
A
Kinds of frames Given the frame F = <W, R>, the relation R is said to be:
Serial iff for every w ∈ W, there exists w’ ∈ W s.t. wRw’
Reflexive iff for every w ∈ W, wRw Symmetric iff for every w, w’ ∈ W, if wRw’ then w’Rw Transitive iff for every w, w’, w’’ ∈ W, if wRw’
and w’Rw’’ then wRw’’ Euclidian iff for every w, w’, w’’ ∈ W, if wRw’
and wRw’’ then w’Rw’’
We call a frame <W, R> serial, reflexive, symmetric or transitive according to the properties of the relation R
13
Kinds of frames Serial: for every w ∈ W, there exists w’ ∈ W s.t. wRw’
Reflexive: for every w ∈ W, wRw
Symmetric: for every w, w’ ∈ W, if wRw’ then w’Rw
14
1 2 3
1 2
1 2 3
Kinds of frames Transitive: for every w, w’, w’’ ∈ W, if wRw’ and w’Rw’’
then wRw’’
Euclidian: for every w, w’, w’’ ∈ W, if wRw’ and wRw’’ then w’Rw’’
15
1 2 3
1 2
3
Valid schemas A schema is a formula where I can change the variables THEOREM. The following schemas are valid in the class of
indicated frames:
D: □A ◊A valid for serial frames
T: □A A valid for reflexive frames
B: A □◊A valid for symmetric frames
4: □A □□A valid for transitive frames
5: ◊A □◊A valid for Euclidian frames
NOTE: if we apply T, B and 4 we have an equivalence relation
THEOREM. The following schema is valid:
K: □(A B) (□A □B) Distributivity of □ w.r.t.
16
Proof for T: □ A A valid for reflexive frames
Assuming M, w ⊨ □A, we want to prove that M, w ⊨ A.
From the assumption M, w ⊨ □A, we have that for every w’∈W such that wRw’ we have that M, w’ ⊨ A (1).
Since R is reflexive we also have w’Rw, we then imply that M, w ⊨ A (by substituting w to w’ in (1))
17
□A, A
1 2
Proof for B: A □◊A valid for symmetric frames
Assume M, w ⊨ A. To prove that M, w ⊨ □◊A we need to show that for every w’ ∈ W such that wRw’ then M, w ⊨ ◊A.
M, w ⊨ ◊A is that for some w’’∈W such that w’Rw’’ then M, w’’ ⊨ A. Therefore we need to prove that for every w’∈W such that wRw’ and for some w’’∈W such that w’Rw’’ then M, w’’ ⊨ A
Since R is symmetric, from wRw’ it follows that w’Rw. For w’’∈W such that w’’ = w, we have that w’Rw’’ and M, w’’ ⊨ A.
Hence M, w ⊨ A.
18
1 2 3
A, □◊A ◊A
Reasoning services: EVAL Model Checking (EVAL)
Given a (finite) model M = <W, R, I> and a proposition P ∈ LML we want to check whether M, w ⊨ P for all w ∈ W
M, w ⊨ P for all w ?
19
EVALM, PYes
No
Reasoning services: SAT Satisfiability (SAT)
Given a proposition P ∈ LML we want to check whether there exists a (finite) model M = <W, R, I> such that M, w ⊨ P for all w ∈ W
Find M such that M, w ⊨ P for all w
20
SATPM
No
Reasoning services: UNSAT Unsatisfiability (unSAT)
Given a (finite) model M = <W, R, I> and a proposition P ∈ LML we want to check that does not exist any world w such that M, w ⊨ P
Verify that ∃ w such that M, w ⊨ P
21
VALM, Pw
No
Reasoning services: VAL Validity (VAL)
Given a a proposition P ∈ LML we want to check that M, w ⊨ P for all (finite) models M = <W, R, I> and w ∈ W
Verify that M, w ⊨ P for all M and w
22
VALPYes
No
Correspondence between □ and ∀ (◊ and ∃) We can define a translation function T: LML LFO as follows:
1. T(P) = P(x) for all propositions P in LML
2. T(P) = T(P) for all propositions P
3. T(P * Q) = T(P) * T(Q) for all propositions P, Q and *∈{,,}
4. T(□P) = ∀x T(P) for all propositions P
5. T(◊P) = ∃x T(P) for all propositions P
THEOREM:
For all propositions P in LML, P is modally valid iff T(P) is valid in FOL.
23
top related