Logic Concepts
Lecture Module 11
Objective
Logic Concepts
Equivalence Laws
Propositional Logic
Natural deduction method
Axiomatic System
Semantic Tableaux System
Resolution Refutation Method
Propositional Logic Concepts
Logic is a study of principles used to
− distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.
Formally it deals with
− the notion of truth in an abstract sense and is
concerned with the principles of valid inferencing.
A proposition in logic is a declarative statements
which are either true or false (but not both) in a
given context. For example,
− “Jack is a male”,
− "Jack loves Mary" etc.
Cont..
Given some propositions to be true in a given
context,
− logic helps in inferencing new proposition, which is
also true in the same context.
Suppose we are given a set of propositions such
as
− “It is hot today" and
− “If it is hot it will rain", then
− we can infer that
− “It will rain today".
Well-formed formula
Propositional Calculus (PC) is a language of
propositions basically refers
− to set of rules used to combine the propositions to form
compound propositions using logical operators often
called connectives such as , V, ~, ,
Well-formed formula is defined as:
− An atom is a well-formed formula.
− If is a well-formed formula, then ~ is a well-formed
formula.
− If and are well formed formulae, then ( ), ( V
), ( ), ( ) are also well-formed
formulae.
− A propositional expression is a well-formed formula if
and only if it can be obtained by using above conditions.
Truth Table
● Truth table gives us operational definitions of important
logical operators.
− By using truth table, the truth values of well-formed formulae
are calculated.
● Truth table elaborates all possible truth values of a
formula.
● The meanings of the logical operators are given by the
following truth table.
P Q ~P PQ PVQ P Q P Q
T T F T T T T
T F F F T F F
F T T F T T F
F F T F F T T
Equivalence Laws
Commutation
1. PQ Q P
2. P V Q Q V P
Association
1. P (Q R) (P Q) R
2. P V (Q V R) (P V Q) V R
Double Negation
~ (~ P) P
Distributive Laws
1. P ( Q V R) (P Q) V (P R)
2. P V ( Q R) (P V Q) (P V R)
De Morgan’s Laws
1. ~ (P Q) ~P V~Q
2. ~ (P V Q) ~P ~Q
Law of Excluded Middle
P V ~P T (true)
Law of Contradiction
P ~P F (false)
Propositional Logic - PL
● PL deals with
− the validity, satisfiability and unsatisfiability of a formula
− derivation of a new formula using equivalence laws.
● Each row of a truth table for a given formula is
called its interpretation under which a formula can
be true or false.
● A formula is called tautology if and only
− if is true for all interpretations.
● A formula is also called valid if and only if
− it is a tautology.
Cont..
● Let be a formula and if there exist at least one
interpretation for which is true,
− then is said to be consistent (satisfiable) i.e., if a model
for , then is said to be consistent .
● A formula is said to be inconsistent (unsatisfiable),
if and only if
− is always false under all interpretations.
● We can translate
− simple declarative and
− conditional (if .. then) natural language sentences into its
corresponding propositional formulae.
Example
● Show that " It is humid today and if it is humid then it
will rain so it will rain today" is a valid argument.
● Solution: Let us symbolize English sentences by
propositional atoms as follows:
A : It is humid
B : It will rain
● Formula corresponding to a text:
: ((A B) A) B
● Using truth table approach, one can see that is true
under all four interpretations and hence is valid
argument.
Cont..
Truth Table for ((A B) A) B
A B A B=X XA= Y Y B
T T T T T
T F F F T
F T T F T
F F T F T
Cont…
● Truth table method for problem solving is
− simple and straightforward and
− very good at presenting a survey of all the truth possibilities
in a given situation.
● It is an easy method to evaluate
− a consistency, inconsistency or validity of a formula, but the
size of truth table grows exponentially.
− Truth table method is good for small values of n.
● For example, if a formula contains n atoms, then the
truth table will contain 2n entries.
− A formula : (P Q R) ( Q V S) is valid can be
proved using truth table.
− A table of 16 rows is constructed and the truth values of
are computed.
− Since the truth value of is true under all 16
interpretations, it is valid.
Cont..
● We notice that if P Q R is false, then is true
because of the definition of .
● Since P Q R is false for 14 entries out of 16, we
are left only with two entries to be tested for which
is true.
− So in order to prove the validity of a formula, all the entries in
the truth table may not be relevant.
● Other methods which are concerned with proofs and
deductions of logical formula are as follows:
− Natural Deductive System
− Axiomatic System
− Semantic Tableaux Method
− Resolution Refutation Method
Natural deduction method - ND
● ND is based on the set of few deductive inference
rules.
● The name natural deductive system is given because
it mimics the pattern of natural reasoning.
● It has about 10 deductive inference rules.
Conventions:
− E for Elimination.
− P, Pk , (1 k n) are atoms.
− k, (1 k n) and are formulae.
ND Rules
Rule 1: I- (Introducing )
I- : If P1, P2, …, Pn then P1 P2 … Pn
Interpretation: If we have hypothesized or proved P1, P2, … and Pn ,
then their conjunction P1 P2 … Pn is also proved or derived.
Rule 2: E- ( Eliminating )
E- : If P1 P2 … Pn then Pi ( 1 i n)
Interpretation: If we have proved P1 P2 … Pn , then any Pi is also
proved or derived. This rule shows that can be eliminated to yield
one of its conjuncts.
Rule 3: I-V (Introducing V)
I-V : If Pi ( 1 i n) then P1V P2 V …V Pn
Interpretation: If any Pi (1 i n) is proved, then P1V …V Pn is also
proved.
Rule 4: E-V ( Eliminating V)
E-V : If P1 V … V Pn, P1 P, … , Pn P then P
Interpretation: If P1 V … V Pn, P1 P, … , and Pn P are proved, then
P is proved.
Rules – cont..
Rule 5: I- (Introducing )
I- : If from 1, …, n infer is proved then 1 … n is
proved
Interpretation: If given 1, 2, …and n to be proved and from these
we deduce then 1 2 … n is also proved.
Rule 6: E- (Eliminating ) - Modus Ponen
E- : If P1 P, P1 then P
Rule 7: I- (Introducing )
I- : If P1 P2, P2 P1 then P1 P2
Rule 8: E- (Elimination )
E- : If P1 P2 then P1 P2 , P2 P1
Rule 9: I- ~ (Introducing ~)
I- ~ : If from P infer P1 ~ P1 is proved then ~P is proved
Rule 10: E- ~ (Eliminating ~)
E- ~ : If from ~ P infer P1 ~ P1 is proved then P is proved
Cont..
● If a formula is derived / proved from a set of premises /
hypotheses { 1,…, n },
− then one can write it as from 1, …, n infer .
● In natural deductive system,
− a theorem to be proved should have a form from 1, …, n infer .
● Theorem infer means that
− there are no premises and is true under all interpretations i.e., is a
tautology or valid.
● If we assume that is a premise, then we conclude that
is proved if is given i.e.,
− if ‘from infer ’ is a theorem then is concluded.
− The converse of this is also true.
Deduction Theorem: To prove a formula 1 2 … n , it
is sufficient to prove a theorem from 1, 2, …, n infer .
Examples
Example1: Prove that P(QVR) follows from PQ
Solution: This problem is restated in natural deductive system as "from
P Q infer P (Q V R)". The formal proof is given as follows:
{Theorem} from P Q infer P (Q V R)
{ premise} PQ (1)
{ E- , (1)} P (2)
{ E- , (1)} Q (3)
{ I-V , (3) } QVR (4)
{ I-, ( 2, 4)} P (Q V R) Conclusion
Cont..
Example2: Prove the following theorem:
infer ((Q P) (Q R)) (Q (P R))
Solution:
● In order to prove infer ((Q P) (Q R)) (Q (P R)),
prove a theorem from {Q P, Q R} infer Q (P R).
● Further, to prove Q (P R), prove a sub theorem from Q infer
P R
{Theorem} from Q P, Q R infer Q (P R)
{ premise 1} Q P (1)
{ premise 2} Q R (2)
{ sub theorem} from Q infer P R (3)
{ premise } Q (3.1)
{ E- , (1, 3.1) } P (3.2)
{E- , (2, 3.1) } R (3.3)
{ I-, (3.2,3.3) } P R (3.4)
{ I- , ( 3 )} Q (P R) Conclusion
Axiomatic System for PL
● It is based on the set of only three axioms and one
rule of deduction.
−It is minimal in structure but as powerful as the truth table
and natural deduction approaches.
− The proofs of the theorems are often difficult and require a
guess in selection of appropriate axiom(s) and rules.
− These methods basically require forward chaining strategy
where we start with the given hypotheses and prove the
goal.
Axiom1 (A1): ( )
Axiom2 (A2): ( ()) (( ) ( ))
Axiom3 (A3): (~ ~ ) ( )
Modus Ponen (MP) defined as follows:
Hypotheses: and Consequent:
Examples
Examples: Establish the following:
1. {Q} |-(PQ) i.e., PQ is a deductive consequence of {Q}.
{Hypothesis} Q (1)
{Axiom A1} Q (P Q) (2)
{MP, (1,2)} P Q proved
2. { P Q, Q R } |- ( P R ) i.e., P R is a deductive
consequence of { P Q, Q R }.
{Hypothesis} P Q (1)
{Hypothesis} Q R (2)
{Axiom A1} (Q R) (P (Q R)) (3)
{MP, (2, 3)} P (Q R) (4)
{Axiom A2} (P (Q R))
((P Q) (P R)) (5)
{MP , (4, 5)} (P Q) (P R) (6)
{MP, (1, 6)} P R proved
Deduction Theorems in AS
Deduction Theorem:
If is a set of hypotheses and and are well-
formed formulae , then { } |- implies
|- ( ).
Converse of deduction theorem:
Given |- ( ),
we can prove { } |- .
Useful Tips
1. Given , we can easily prove for any well-
formed formulae and .
2. Useful tip
If is to be proved, then include in the set
of hypotheses and derive from the set {
}. Then using deduction theorem, we conclude
.
Example: Prove ~ P (P Q) using deduction
theorem.
Proof: Prove {~ P} |- (P Q) and
|- ~ P(PQ) follows from deduction theorem.
Semantic Tableaux System in PL
● Earlier approaches require
− construction of proof of a formula from given set of
formulae and are called direct methods.
● In semantic tableaux,
− the set of rules are applied systematically on a formula
or set of formulae to establish its consistency or
inconsistency.
● Semantic tableau
− binary tree constructed by using semantic rules with a
formula as a root
● Assume and be any two formulae.
Semantic Tableaux Rules
Rule 1: A tableau for a formula ( ) is constructed by adding both
and to the same path (branch). This can be represented as
follows:
Rule 2: A tableau for a formula ~ ( ) is constructed by adding two
alternative paths one containing ~ and other containing ~.
~ ( )
~ ~
Rule 3: A tableau for a formula ( V ) is constructed by adding two
new paths one containing and other containing .
V
Rule 4: A tableau for a formula ~ ( V ) is constructed by adding
both ~ and ~ to the same path. This can be expressed as
follows: ~ ( V )
~
~
Rules - Cont..
Rule 5: ~ ~
Rule 6:
~
Rule 7: ~ ( )
~
Rule 8: ( ) V (~ ~ )
~ ~
Rule 9: ~ ( ) ( ~ ) V (~ )
~ ( )
~ ~
Consistency and Inconsistency
● If an atom P and ~ P appear on a same path of a
semantic tableau,
− then inconsistency is indicated and such path is said to be
contradictory or closed (finished) path.
− Even if one path remains non contradictory or unclosed
(open), then the formula at the root of a tableau is
consistent.
● Contradictory tableau (or finished tableau):
− It defined to be a tableau in which all the paths are
contradictory or closed (finished).
● If a tableau for a formula at the root is a
contradictory tableau,
− then a formula is said to be inconsistent.
Examples
● Show that : ( Q ~ R) ( R P) is consistent and find
its model.
{Tableau root} ( Q ~ R)( R P) (1)
{Apply rule 1 to 1} (Q ~ R) (2)
( RP) (3)
{Apply rule 1 to 2} Q
{Apply rule 6 to 3} ~R
~R P
open open
● { Q = T, R = F } and { P = T , Q = T, R = F } are models of .
Cont...
● Show that : (P Q R) ( ~P S) Q ~ R ~ S
is inconsistent using tableaux method.
(Root} (P Q R) ( ~P S) Q ~R ~S (1)
{Apply rule 1 to 1} P Q R (2)
~P S (3)
Q
~R
~S
{Apply rule 6 to 3} ~ ~P = P S
Closed: {S, ~ S} on the path
{Apply rule 6 to 2)} ~ (P Q) R
Closed { R, ~ R}
~P ~Q
Closed {P, ~ P} Closed{Q, ~ Q}
● is inconsistent as we get contradictory tableau.
Resolution Refutation in PL
● Resolution refutation: Another simple method to prove
a formula by contradiction.
● Here negation of goal is added to given set of clauses.
− If there is a refutation in new set using resolution principle
then goal is proved
● During resolution we need to identify two clauses,
− one with positive atom (P) and other with negative atom (~ P)
for the application of resolution rule.
● Resolution is based on modus ponen inference rule.
Disjunctive & Conjunctive Normal Forms
● Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF): A formula in the
form (L11 ….. L1n ) V ..… V (Lm1 ….. Lmk ),
where all Lij are literals.
− Disjunctive Normal Form is disjunction of conjunctions.
● Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF): A formula in the
form (L11 V ….. V L1n ) …… (Lp1 V ….. V Lpm ) ,
where all Lij are literals.
− CNF is conjunction of disjunctions or
− CNF is conjunction of clauses
● Clause: It is a formula of the form (L1V … V Lm),
where each Lk is a positive or negative atom.
Conversion of a Formula to its CNF
● Each PL formula can be converted into its equivalent
CNF.
● Use following equivalence laws:
− P Q ~P V Q
− P Q ( P Q) ( Q P)
Double Negation
− ~ ~ P P
(De Morgan’s law)
− ~ ( P Q) ~ P V ~ Q
− ~ ( P V Q) ~ P ~ Q
(Distributive law)
− P V (Q R) (P V Q) (P V R)
Resolvent of Clauses
● If two clauses C1 and C2 contain a complementary
pair of literals {L, ~L},
− then these clauses may be resolved together by deleting L
from C1 and ~ L from C2 and constructing a new clause by
the disjunction of the remaining literals in C1 and C2.
● The new clause thus generated is called resolvent of
C1 and C2 .
− Here C1 and C2 are called parents of resolved clause.
● Inverted binary tree is generated with the last node
(root) of the binary tree to be a resolvent.
− This is also called resolution tree.
Example
● Find resolvent of the following clauses:
− C1 = P V Q V R; C2 = ~ Q V W; C3 = P V ~ W
● Inverted Resolution Tree
P V Q V R ~Q V W
{Q, ~ Q}
P V R V W P V ~W
{W, ~ W}
PVR
● Resolvent(C1,C2, C3) = P V R
Logical Consequence
● Theorem1: If C is a resolvent of two clauses C1 and
C2 , then C is a logical consequence of {C1 , C2 }.
− A deduction of an empty clause (or resolvent as
contradiction) from a set S of clauses is called a resolution
refutation of S.
● Theorem2: Let S be a set of clauses. A clause C is
a logical consequence of S iff the set S’= S {~ C}
is unsatisfiable.
− In other words, C is a logical consequence of a given set S
iff an empty clause is deduced from the set S'.
Example
● Show that C V D is a logical consequence of
− S ={AVB, ~ AVD, C V~ B} using resolution refutation principle.
● First we will add negation of logical consequence
− i.e., ~ (C V D) ~C ~D to the set S.
− Get S’ = {A V B, ~ A V D, C V~ B, ~C, ~D}.
● Now show that S’ is unsatisfiable by deriving
contradiction using resolution principle.
AVB ~A V D CV~B ~C ~D
BVD
CVD
