First-Order LogicOrder Logic - Computer Sciencelazebnik/fall10/lec13_fol.pdf · · 2010-10-26First-order logicorder logic • Propositional logic assumes the worldlogic assumes

First-Order LogicFirst-Order Logic

Limitations of propositional logicLimitations of propositional logic

• Suppose you want to say “All humans are mortal”• Suppose you want to say All humans are mortal– In propositional logic, you would need

~6 7 billion statements~6.7 billion statements• Suppose you want to say “Some people can run a

marathon”marathon– You would need a disjunction of ~6.7 billion

statementsstatements

First-order logicFirst order logic

• Propositional logic assumes the world consistsPropositional logic assumes the world consists of atomic facts

• First-order logic assumes the world contains gobjects, relations, and functions

Syntax of FOLSyntax of FOL• Constants: John, Sally, 2, ... • Variables: x, y, a, b,...• Predicates: Person(John), Siblings(John, Sally), IsOdd(2), ...• Functions: MotherOf(John) Sqrt(x)Functions: MotherOf(John), Sqrt(x), ...• Connectives: ¬, ∧, ∨, ⇒, ⇔• Equality: =

Q tifi• Quantifiers: ∀, ∃

• Term: Constant or Variable or Function(Term1, ... , Termn)• Atomic sentence: Predicate(Term1, ... , Termn) or Term1 = Term2

• Complex sentence: made from atomic sentences using connectivesand quantifiersq

Semantics of FOLSemantics of FOL• Sentences are true with respect to a model and an p

interpretation• Model contains objects (domain elements) and relations

thamong them• Interpretation specifies referents for

constant symbols → objectsconstant symbols → objectspredicate symbols → relationsfunction symbols → functional relationsy

• An atomic sentence Predicate(Term1, ... , Termn) is true iff the objects referred to by Term1, ... , Termn are in the relation referred to by predicate

Universal quantificationUniversal quantification• ∀x P(x)( )

• Example: “Everyone at UNC is smart”∀x At(x UNC) ⇒ Smart(x)∀x At(x,UNC) ⇒ Smart(x)Why not ∀x At(x,UNC) ∧ Smart(x)?

R hl ki i l t t th j ti f ll• Roughly speaking, equivalent to the conjunction of all possible instantiations of the variable:At(John, UNC) ⇒ Smart(John) ∧ ...( ) ( )At(Richard, UNC) ⇒ Smart(Richard) ∧ ...

• ∀x P(x) is true in a model m iff P(x) is true with x being∀x P(x) is true in a model m iff P(x) is true with x being each possible object in the model

Existential quantificationExistential quantification• ∃x P(x)( )

• Example: “Someone at UNC is smart”∃x At(x UNC) Smart(x)∃x At(x,UNC) ∧ Smart(x)Why not ∃x At(x,UNC) ⇒ Smart(x)?

f• Roughly speaking, equivalent to the disjunction of all possible instantiations:[At(John,UNC) ∧ Smart(John)] ∨[ ( , ) ( )][At(Richard,UNC) ∧ Smart(Richard)] ∨ …

∃ P( ) i t i d l iff P( ) i t ith b i• ∃x P(x) is true in a model m iff P(x) is true with x being some possible object in the model

Properties of quantifiers• ∀x ∀y is the same as ∀y ∀x• ∃x ∃y is the same as ∃y ∃x∃x ∃y is the same as ∃y ∃x• ∃x ∀y is not the same as ∀y ∃x

∃x ∀y Loves(x,y)“There is a person who loves everyone”

∀y ∃x Loves(x,y)“Everyone is loved by at least one person”y y p

• Quantifier duality: each quantifier can be expressed using the other with the help of negation∀x Likes(x,IceCream) ¬∃x ¬Likes(x,IceCream)∃x Likes(x,Broccoli) ¬∀x ¬Likes(x,Broccoli)∃x Likes(x,Broccoli) ¬∀x ¬Likes(x,Broccoli)

EqualityEquality

• Term1 = Term2 is true under a given model ifTerm1 Term2 is true under a given model if and only if Term1 and Term2 refer to the same object

• E.g., definition of Sibling in terms of Parent:S ( )∀x,y Sibling(x,y) ⇔

[¬(x = y) ∧ ∃m,f ¬ (m = f) ∧ Parent(m,x) ∧Parent(f,x) ∧ Parent(m,y) ∧ Parent(f,y)]( , ) ( ,y) ( ,y)]

Using FOL: The Kinship DomainUsing FOL: The Kinship Domain

• Brothers are siblingsBrothers are siblings∀x,y Brother(x,y) ⇒ Sibling(x,y)

• “Sibling” is symmetricSibling is symmetric∀x,y Sibling(x,y) ⇔ Sibling(y,x)

• One's mother is one's female parentp∀m,c (Mother(c) = m) ⇔ (Female(m) ∧ Parent(m,c))

Why “First order”?Why First order ?

• FOL permits quantification over variablesFOL permits quantification over variables• Higher order logics permit quantification

over functions and predicates:over functions and predicates:∀P,x [P(x) ∨ ¬P(x)]

∀x,y (x=y) ⇔ [∀P (P(x)⇔P(y))]

Inference in FOLInference in FOL

• All rules of inference for propositional logic applyAll rules of inference for propositional logic apply to first-order logic

• We just need to reduce FOL sentences to PL jsentences by instantiating variables and removing quantifiers

Reduction of FOL to PLReduction of FOL to PL• Suppose the KB contains the following:pp g

∀x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) ⇒ Evil(x)King(John) Greedy(John) Brother(Richard,John)

• How can we reduce this to PL?• Let’s instantiate the universal sentence in all possible ways:

( ) G ( ) ( )King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) ⇒ Evil(John)King(Richard) ∧ Greedy(Richard) ⇒ Evil(Richard)King(John) Greedy(John) Brother(Richard John)King(John) Greedy(John) Brother(Richard,John)

• The KB is propositionalized– Proposition symbols are King(John), Greedy(John), Evil(John), p y g( ) y( ) ( )

King(Richard), etc.

Reduction of FOL to PLReduction of FOL to PL• What about existential quantification, e.g.,q , g ,

∃x Crown(x) ∧ OnHead(x,John) ?• Let’s instantiate the sentence with a new constant that

doesn’t appear anywhere in the KB:Crown(C1) ∧ OnHead(C1,John)

SubstitutionSubstitution

• Substitution of variables by ground terms:Substitution of variables by ground terms:

SUBST({v/g},P)

– Result of SUBST({x/Harry, y/Sally}, Loves(x,y)):Loves(Harry Sally)Loves(Harry,Sally)

– Result of SUBST({x/John}, King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) ⇒ Evil(x)):King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) ⇒ Evil(John)

Universal instantiation (UI)Universal instantiation (UI)• A universally quantified sentence entails every y q y

instantiation of it:∀v P(v)

SUBST({ / } P( ))SUBST({v/g}, P(v))

for any variable v and ground term gfor any variable v and ground term g

• E.g., ∀x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) ⇒ Evil(x) yields:g , g( ) y( ) ( ) yKing(John) ∧ Greedy(John) ⇒ Evil(John)King(Richard) ∧ Greedy(Richard) ⇒ Evil(Richard)King(Father(John)) ∧ Greedy(Father(John)) ⇒

Evil(Father(John))

Existential instantiation (EI)• An existentially quantified sentence entails the

instantiation of that sentence with a new constant:instantiation of that sentence with a new constant:

∃v P(v)SUBST({v/C} P(v))SUBST({v/C}, P(v))

for any sentence P, variable v, and constant C that does not appear elsewhere in the knowledge basenot appear elsewhere in the knowledge base

• E.g., ∃x Crown(x) ∧ OnHead(x,John) yields:Crown(C1) ∧ OnHead(C1,John)

provided C1 is a new constant symbol, called a Skolemconstant

Propositionalization

• Every FOL KB can be propositionalized so as to preserve entailment– A ground sentence is entailed by the new KB iff it is

entailed by the original KBentailed by the original KB

• Idea: propositionalize KB and query, apply resolution, dea p opos o a e a d que y, app y eso u o ,return result

• Problem: with function symbols, there are infinitely many ground terms– For example Father(X) yields Father(John)– For example, Father(X) yields Father(John),

Father(Father(John)), Father(Father(Father(John))), etc.

Propositionalization• Theorem (Herbrand 1930):

– If a sentence α is entailed by an FOL KB it is entailed by a finiteIf a sentence α is entailed by an FOL KB, it is entailed by a finite subset of the propositionalized KB

Id F 0 t I fi it d• Idea: For n = 0 to Infinity do– Create a propositional KB by instantiating with depth-n terms– See if α is entailed by this KB

• Problem: works if α is entailed, loops if α is not entailed

• Theorem (Turing 1936, Church 1936): – Entailment for FOL is semidecidable: algorithms exist that sayEntailment for FOL is semidecidable: algorithms exist that say

yes to every entailed sentence, but no algorithm exists that also says no to every nonentailed sentence

Review: FOL inferenceReview: FOL inference

PropositionalizationPropositionalization

• Example KB:p∀x King(x) ∧ Greedy(x) ⇒ Evil(x) ∀y Greedy(y)King(John) Brother(Richard,John)

• What will propositionalization produce?King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) ⇒ Evil(John)King(John) ∧ Greedy(John) ⇒ Evil(John)King(Richard) ∧ Greedy(Richard) ⇒ Evil(Richard)Greedy(John) Greedy(Richard)King(John) Brother(Richard John)King(John) Brother(Richard,John)

• But what if all we want is to prove Evil(John)?p ( )

Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)(GMP)

p1', p2', … , pn', (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ … ∧ pn ⇒q) p1 p2 pn (p1 p2 pn q)such that SUBST(θ, pi')= SUBST(θ, pi) for all i

SUBST(θ,q)( ,q)

• Used with definite clauses (exactly one positive literal)• All variables assumed universally quantified

• Example:Example:p1' is King(John) p1 is King(x)p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x) θ is {x/John y/John}θ is {x/John,y/John} q is Evil(x) SUBST(θ,q) is Evil(John)

UnificationUnificationUNIFY(α,β) = θ means that SUBST(θ, α) = SUBST(θ, β)( ,β) ( , ) ( , β)

p q θKnows(John x) Knows(John Jane) {x/Jane}Knows(John,x) Knows(John,Jane) {x/Jane}Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mary) {x/Mary, y/John}Knows(John,x) Knows(y,Mother(y)) {y/John, x/Mother(John)}Knows(John,x) Knows(x,Mary) {x1/John, x2/Mary}Knows(John,x) Knows(y,z) {y/John, x/z}

• Standardizing apart eliminates overlap of variables• Most general unifier

Inference with GMP

p1', p2', … , pn', (p1 ∧ p2 ∧ … ∧ pn ⇒q) p1 p2 pn (p1 p2 pn q)such that SUBST(θ, pi')= SUBST(θ, pi) for all i

SUBST(θ,q)( ,q)

• Forward chaining– Like search: keep proving new things and adding them to

the KB until we can prove q

• Backward chaining– Find p1, …, pn such that knowing them would prove qp1, , pn g p q– Recursively try to prove p1, …, pn

Example knowledge baseExample knowledge base• The law says that it is a crime for an American to sell y

weapons to hostile nations. The country Nono, an enemy of America, has some missiles, and all of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel West who ismissiles were sold to it by Colonel West, who is American.

C• Prove that Col. West is a criminal

Example knowledge baseExample knowledge baseIt is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations:

American(x) Weapon(y) Sells(x y z) Hostile(z) Criminal(x)American(x) ∧ Weapon(y) ∧ Sells(x,y,z) ∧ Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)Nono has some missiles

∃x Owns(Nono,x) ∧ Missile(x)Owns(Nono,M1) ∧ Missile(M1)

All of its missiles were sold to it by Colonel WestMissile(x) ∧ Owns(Nono,x) ⇒ Sells(West,x,Nono)

Missiles are weapons:Missile(x) ⇒ Weapon(x)

An enemy of America counts as “hostile”:yEnemy(x,America) ⇒ Hostile(x)

West is AmericanAmerican(West)American(West)

The country Nono is an enemy of America Enemy(Nono,America)

Forward chaining proofForward chaining proof

American(x) ∧ Weapon(y) ∧ Sells(x,y,z) ∧ Hostile(z) ⇒ Criminal(x)Owns(Nono,M1) ∧ Missile(M1)Missile(x) ∧ Owns(Nono,x) ⇒ Sells(West,x,Nono)Missile(x) ⇒ Weapon(x) Enemy(x,America) ⇒ Hostile(x)American(West) Enemy(Nono,America)





Backward chaining exampleBackward chaining example












Backward chaining algorithmBackward chaining algorithm

Resolution: FOL versionResolution: FOL versionp1 ∨ ··· ∨ pk, q1 ∨ ··· ∨ qn

such that UNIFY(pi, ¬qj) = θSUBST(θ, p1 ∨ ··· ∨ pi-1 ∨ pi+1 ∨ ··· ∨ pk ∨ q1 ∨ ··· ∨ qj-1 ∨ qj+1 ∨ ··· ∨ qn)

• For example,¬Rich(x) ∨ Unhappy(x)

Rich(Ken)Rich(Ken)Unhappy(Ken)

with θ = {x/Ken}

• Apply resolution steps to CNF(KB ∧ ¬α); complete for FOLpp y p ( ); p

Resolution proof: definite clausesResolution proof: definite clauses

First-Order LogicOrder Logic - Computer Sciencelazebnik/fall10/lec13_fol.pdf · · 2010-10-26First-order logicorder logic • Propositional logic assumes the worldlogic assumes

Documents