1 / 20

Lecture 1.3: Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference*

Lecture 1.3: Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference*. CS 250, Discrete Structures, Fall 2011 Nitesh Saxena * Adopted from previous lectures by Cinda Heeren. Course Admin. Slides from last lecture were posted Both ppt and pdf Expect HW1 to be coming in a week from now

brook
Télécharger la présentation

Lecture 1.3: Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference*

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Lecture 1.3: Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference* CS 250, Discrete Structures, Fall 2011 Nitesh Saxena *Adopted from previous lectures by Cinda Heeren

  2. Course Admin • Slides from last lecture were posted • Both ppt and pdf • Expect HW1 to be coming in a week from now • Competency exam/quiz today (last 15 minutes) • A 15 minute exam testing for some basic math questions • A must take for every student Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  3. Outline • Predicate Logic (contd.) • Rules of Inference for mathematical proofs Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  4. Quantifiers – another way to look at them • To simplify, let us say that the universe of discourse is {x1, x2 } • x P(x)  P(x1)  P(x2) • x P(x)  P(x1)  P(x2) • This is very useful in proving equivalences involving propositions that use quantifiers • Let us see some examples Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  5. Laws and Quantifiers • Negation or De Morgan’s Law (we saw this last time): • x P(x)  x P(x) • x P(x)  x P(x) • Distributivity: • x (P(x)  Q(x))  x P(x)  x Q(x) • x (P(x)  Q(x))  x P(x)  x Q(x) • Can’t distribute universal quantifier over disjunciton or existential quantifier over conjunction Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  6. Reminder: in a proposition, all variables must be bound. Predicates – Free and Bound Variables A variable is bound if it is known or quantified. Otherwise, it is free. Examples: P(x) x is free P(5) x is bound to 5 x P(x) x is bound by quantifier Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  7. True proposition • False proposition • Not a proposition • No clue c) b) b) b) Predicates – Nested Quantifiers To bind many variables, use many quantifiers! Example: P(x,y) = “x > y”; universe of discourse is natural numbers • x P(x,y) • xy P(x,y) • xy P(x,y) • x P(x,3) Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  8. P(x,y) true for all x, y pairs. For every value of x we can find a y so that P(x,y) is true. P(x,y) true for at least one x, y pair. There is at least one x for which P(x,y) is always true. 1 and 2 are commutative 3 and 4 are not commutative Suppose P(x,y) = “x’s favorite class is y.” Predicates – Meaning of Nested Quantifiers • xy P(x,y) • xy P(x,y) • xy P(x,y) • xy P(x,y) Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  9. False True True False Nested Quantifiers – example N(x,y) = “x is sitting by y” • xy N(x,y) • xy N(x,y) • xy N(x,y) • xy N(x,y) Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  10. How do we know it? Proofs – How do we know? The following statements are true: If I am Mila, then I am a great swimmer. I am Mila. What do we know to be true? I am a great swimmer! Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  11. Axiom, postulates, hypotheses and previously proven theorems. Rules of inference Proof Proofs – How do we know? A theorem is a statement that can be shown to be true. A proof is the means of doing so. Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  12. What rule of inference can we use to justify it? Proofs – How do we know? The following statements are true: If I have taken MA 106, then I am allowed to take CS 250 I have taken MA 106 What do we know to be true? I am allowed to take CS 250 Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  13. p p  q Tautology: (p  (p  q))  q  q Rules of Inference – Modus Ponens I have taken MA 106. If I have taken MA 106, then I am allowed to take CS 250.  I am allowed to take CS 250. Inference Rule: Modus Ponens Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  14. q p  q Tautology: (q  (p  q))  p  p Rules of Inference – Modus Tollens I am not allowed to take CS 250. If I have taken MA 106 , then I am allowed to take CS 250.  I have not taken MA 106. Inference Rule: Modus Tollens Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  15. p Tautology: p  (p  q)  p  q Rules of Inference – Addition I am not a great skater.  I am not a great skater or I am tall. Inference Rule: Addition Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  16. p  q Tautology: (p  q) p  p Rules of Inference – Simplification I am not a great skater and you are sleepy.  you are sleepy. Inference Rule: Simplification Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  17. p  q q Tautology: ((p  q)  q)  p  p Rules of Inference – Disjunctive Syllogism I am a great eater or I am a great skater. I am not a great skater.  I am a great eater! Inference Rule: Disjunctive Syllogism Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  18. p  q q  r Tautology: ((p  q)  (q  r))  (p  r)  p  r Rules of Inference – Hypothetical Syllogism If you are an athlete, you are always hungry. If you are always hungry, you have a snickers in your backpack.  If you are an athlete, you have a snickers in your backpack. Inference Rule: Hypothetical Syllogism Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  19. Addition Modus Tollens Examples Amy is a computer science major.  Amy is a math major or a computer science major. If Ernie is a math major then Ernie is geeky. Ernie is not geeky!  Ernie is not a math major. Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

  20. Today’s Reading and Next Lecture • Rosen 1.5 and 1.6 • Again, please start solving the exercises at the end of each chapter section! • Please read 1.6 and 1.7 in preparation for the next lecture Lecture 1.3 - Predicate Logic, and Rules of Inference

More Related