# (LMCS, p. 317) V.1. First Order Logic. This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine.

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "(LMCS, p. 317) V.1. First Order Logic. This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine."

## Transcription

1 (LMCS, p. 317) V.1 First Order Logic This is the most powerful, most expressive logic that we will examine. Our version of first-order logic will use the following symbols: variables connectives (,,,, ) function symbols relation symbols constant symbols equality ( ) quantifiers (, )

2 (LMCS, p. 318) V.2 Formulas for a first-order language L are defined inductively as follows: There are two kinds of atomic formulas: (s t), where s and t are terms, and (rt 1 t n ), where r is an n ary relation symbol and t 1,, t n are terms. If F is a formula, then so is ( F). If F and G are formulas, then so are (F G), (F G), (F G), (F G). If F is a formula and x is a variable, then ( x F) and ( x F) are formulas.

3 (LMCS, p. 318) V.3 Notational Conventions Drop outer parentheses Adopt the previous precedence conventions for the propositional connectives. Quantifiers bind more strongly than any of the connectives. Thus y (rxy) y (rxy) means ( y (rxy)) ( y (rxy)).

4 (LMCS, p. 318) V.4 The subformulas of a formula F : The only subformula of an atomic formula F is F itself. The subformulas of F are F itself and all the subformulas of F. The subformulas of F G are F G itself and all the subformulas of F and all the subformulas of G. ( is any of,,, r ). The subformulas of x F are x F itself and all the subformulas of F. The subformulas of x F are x F itself and all the subformulas of F.

5 (LMCS, p ) V.5 An occurrence of a variable x in a formula F is: bound if the occurrence is in a subformula of the form x G or of the form x G (such a subformula is called the scope of the quantifier that begins the subformula). Otherwise the occurrence of the variable is said to be free. A formula with no free occurrences of variables is called a sentence.

6 (LMCS, p ) V.6 Given a bound occurrence of x in F, we say that x is bound by an occurrence of a quantifier Q if (i) the occurrence of Q quantifies the variable x, and (ii) subject to this constraint the scope of this occurrence of Q is the smallest in which the given occurrence of x occurs.

7 (LMCS, p. 319) V.7 It is easier to explain scope, and quantifiers that bind variables, with a diagram: An occurrence of the variable x bound by A x ( ( r x y ) ( y (( x ( r z x) ) ( r x z))) A E Scopes of quantifiers are underlined

8 (LMCS, p. 319) V.8 The following figure indicates all the bound and free variables in the previous formula: free occurrences A x ( ( r x y ) ( y (( x ( r z x) ) ( r x z))) A E bound occurrences

9 (LMCS, p ) V.9 Examples b < 3 is also an atomic sentence, which says four is less than three. False in N. c. x y (x < y) says that for every number there is a larger number. True in N. d. y x (x < y) says that there is a number that is larger than every other number. False in N.

10 (LMCS, p ) V.10 f. x ( (0 < x) y (y y x) ) says that every positive number is a square. False in N. h. x y ((x < y) z ( (x < z) (z < y) )) says that if one number is less than another, then there is a number properly between the two. False in N.

11 (LMCS, p ) V.11 We will use the shorthand notation F i 1 i n to mean the same as the notation F 1 F n. Likewise, we will use the notations F i 1 i n and F 1 F n.

12 (LMCS, p ) V.12 English to First-order Given a first order formula F(x) we can find first order sentences to say a. There is at least one number such that F(x) is true in N. x F(x) b. There are at least two numbers such that F(x) is true in N. x y ( (x y) F(x) F(y) )

13 (LMCS, p ) V.13 c. There are at least n numbers (n fixed) such that F(x) is true in N. x 1 x n (( 1 i<j n (x i x j ) ) ( 1 i n F(x i ) )) d. There are infinitely many numbers that make F(x) true in N. x y ( (x < y) F(y) ) e. There is at most one number such that F(x) is true in N. x y ( (F(x) F(y)) (x y) )

14 (LMCS, p. 325) V.14 Definable Relations To better understand what we can express with first order sentences we need to introduce definable relations. Given a first order formula F(x 1,..., x k ) we say F is true at a k tuple (a 1,..., a k ) of natural numbers if the expression F(a 1,..., a k ) is a true statement about the natural numbers.

15 (LMCS, p. 325) V.15 Example Let F(x, y) be the formula x < y. Then F is true at (a, b) iff a is less than b. Example Let F(x, y) be z (x z y). Then F is true at (a, b) iff a divides b, written a b. [Note: Don t confuse a b with a b. The first is true or false. The second has a value. Check that a 0 for any a, including a = 0.]

16 (LMCS, p. 325) V.16 Definition For F(x 1,..., x k ) a formula let F N be the set of k tuples (a 1,..., a k ) of natural numbers for which F(a 1,..., a k ) is true in N. F N is the relation on N defined by F. Definition A k ary relation r N k is definable in N if there is a formula F(x 1,..., x k ) such that r = F N.

17 (LMCS, p ) V.17 Example (Definable Relations) x is an even number is definable in N by y (x y + y) x divides y is definable in N by z (x z y) x is prime is definable in N by (1 < x) y ((y x) ( (y 1) (y x) )) x y modulo n is definable in N by z ( (x y + n z) (y x + n z) )

18 (LMCS, p. 326) V.18 We will adopt the following abbreviations: x y for the formula z (x z y) prime(x) for the formula (1 < x) y ( (y x) ( (y 1) (y x) )). Note that in the definition of prime(x) we have used the previous abbreviation. To properly write prime(x) as a first order formula we need to replace that abbreviation; doing so gives us (1 < x) y ( z (y z x) ( (y 1) (y x) ))

19 (LMCS, p. 326) V.19 Abbreviations are not a feature of first order logic, but rather they are a tool used by people to discuss first order logic. Why do we use abbreviations? Without them, writing out the first order sentences that we find interesting would fill up lines with tedious, hard to read symbolism.

20 (LMCS, p. 326) V.20 Given: x y abbreviates z (x z y. Then (u + 1) (u u + 1) is an abbreviation for z ((u + 1) z u u + 1) Now let us write out z 2 to obtain z (z z 1 + 1) Unfortunately, this last formula does not define the set of elements in N that divide 2. It is a first order sentence that is simply false in N the square root of 2 is not a natural number.

21 (LMCS, p. 326) V.21 We have stumbled onto one of the subtler points of first order logic, namely, we must be careful with substitution. The remedy for defining z divides 2 is to use another formula, like w (x w y), for x divides y.

22 (LMCS, p. 326) V.22 We obtain such a formula by simply renaming the bound variable z in the formula for x y. With this formula we can correctly express z divides 2 by w (z w 2). The danger in using abbreviations in first order logic is that we forget the names of the bound variables in the abbreviation.

23 (LMCS, p. 327) V.23 Our solution: add a to the abbreviation to alert the reader to the necessity for renaming the bound variables that overlap with the variables in the term to be substituted into the abbreviation. For example, prime (y + z) alerts the reader to the need to change the formula for prime(x), say to ( (1 < x) v (v x) ( (v 1) (v x) )), so that when we substitute y + z for x in the formula, no new occurrence of y or z becomes bound.

24 (LMCS, p. 327) V.24 Thus we could express prime(y + z) by (1 < y + z) v ( (v (y + z)) ( (v 1) (v y + z) )). Examples [Expressing statements in first-order logic.] a. The relation divides is transitive. x y z ( ((x y) (y z) ) (x z) ) b. There are an infinite number of primes. x y ( (x < y) prime (y) )

25 (LMCS, p. 327) V.25 d. There are an infinite number of pairs of primes that differ by the number 2. (Twin Prime Conjecture) x y ( (x < y) prime (y) prime (y + 2) ) e. All even numbers greater than two are the sum of two primes. (Goldbach s Conjecture) ( ((2 x) ) x (2 < x) y z ( prime (y) prime(z) (x y + z) ))

26 (LMCS, p. 329) V.26 Other Number Systems Our first order language L = {+,, <, 0, 1} can just as easily be used to study other number systems, in particular, the integers Z = (Z, +,, <, 0, 1), the rationals Q = (Q, +,, <, 0, 1), and the reals R = (R, +,, <, 0, 1). However, first order sentences that are true in one can be false in another.

27 (LMCS, p ) V.27 Example Consider the following first order sentences: a. x y (x < y) b. y x (x < y) c. x y ((x < y) z ( (x < z) (z < y) )) d. x y ( (0 < x) (x y y) ) e. x y (x < y).

28 (LMCS, p ) V.28 Then we have N Z Q R a. true true true true b. false true true true c. false false true true d. false false false true e. false false false false We arrive at the simple conclusion that the notion of truth depends on the structure being considered!

29 (LMCS, p. 332) V.29 First Order Syntax for (Directed) graphs The first order language of (directed) graphs is L = {r}, where r is a binary relation symbol. The only terms are the variables x. Atomic formulas look like (x y) or (rxy). Example The subformulas of are x ((rxy) y (ryx)) x ((rxy) y (ryx)) (rxy) y (ryx) rxy y (ryx) ryx.

30 (LMCS, p ) V.30 First Order to English b a d Graph A b c a e Graph B c d b. x (rxx) says the (directed) graph is irreflexive. False for Graph A, true for Graph B. c. x y ( (rxy) (ryx) ) says the (directed) graph is symmetric. False for Graph A, true for Graph B.

31 (LMCS, p ) V.31 b a d Graph A b c a e Graph B c d e. x y (rxy) says all possible edges are present. False for both examples. f. x y (rxy) says for every vertex x there is an edge going from x to some vertex y. True for both examples.

32 (LMCS, p ) V.32 English to First-Order a. The (directed) graph has at least two vertices. x y ( (x y)). b. Every vertex has an edge attached to it. x y ( (rxy) (ryx) ). c. Every vertex has at most two edges directed from it to other vertices. x y z w ( ((rxy) (rxz) (rxw) ) ( (y z) (y w) (w z) ) ).

33 (LMCS, p ) V.33 Statements About Graphs The degree of a vertex is the number of (undirected) edges attached to it. A path of length n from vertex x to vertex y is a sequence of vertices a 1,..., a n+1 with each (a i, a i+1 ) being an edge, and with x = a 1, y = a n+1. Two vertices are adjacent if there is an edge connecting them.

34 (LMCS) V.34 Some Definable Relations a. The degree of x is at least one. y (rxy) b. The degree of x is at least two. y z ( (y z) (rxy) (rxz)) Statements About Graphs a. Some vertex has degree at least two. x y z ( (y z) (rxy) (rxz) ) b. Every vertex has degree at least two. x y z ( (y z) (rxy) (rxz) )

35 (LMCS, p. 339) V.35 Semantics for First Order Logic Given a first order L structure S = (S, I), the interpretation I gives meaning to the symbols of the language L. We associate with each term t(x 1,, x n ) the n ary term function t S. We associate with each formula F(x 1,, x n ) an n ary relation F S S n : [The superscript S is omitted in the following for ease of reading.]

36 (LMCS, p. 339) V.36 F( x) is atomic: F is t 1 ( x ) t 2 ( x ) : F( a) holds iff t 1 ( a) = t 2 ( a) F is rt 1 ( x) t n ( x) F( a) holds iff r(t 1 ( a),..., t n ( a)) holds. F is G Then F( a ) holds iff G( a) does not hold.

37 (LMCS, p. 339) V.37 F is G H Then F( a ) holds iff G( a ) or H( a ) holds. F is G H Then F( a ) holds iff G( a ) and H( a ) holds. F is G H Then F( a ) holds iff G( a ) does not hold, or H( a ) holds.

38 (LMCS, p. 339) V.38 F is G H Then F( a ) holds iff both or neither of G( a ) and H( a ) holds. F( x) is y G(y, x) Then F( a ) holds iff G(b, a ) holds for every b S. F( x) is y G(y, x) Then F( a ) holds iff G(b, a ) holds for some b S.

39 (LMCS, p. 340) V.39 Example S = {a, b} r a b a 0 1 b 1 0 a b f b a F(x) = y z ((rfxfy) (rfyfz)). F S =? Let H 1 (x, y, z) = rfxfy H 2 (x, y, z) = rfyfz H(x, y, z) = H 1 (x, y, z) H 2 (x, y, z) G(x, y) = z H(x, y, z) F(x) = y G(x, y).

40 (LMCS, p. 340) V.40 Then x y z fx fy fz H 1 (x, y, z) H 2 (x, y, z) H(x, y, z) a a a b b b a a b b b a a b a b a b a b b b a a b a a a b b b a b a b a b b a a a b b b b a a a x y G(x, y) a a 0 a b 1 b a 1 b b 0 x F(x) a 0 b 0

41 (LMCS, p. 341) V.41 S = {a, b} r a b a 0 1 b 1 0 a b f b a F(x, y) = z ((rxfz) (fy z)) (fy fx). F S =? Let G 1 (x, y, z) = rxfz G 2 (x, y, z) = fy z G(x, y, z) = G 1 (x, y, z) G 2 (x, y, z) F 1 (x, y) = z G(x, y, z) F 2 (x, y) = fy fx F(x, y) = F 1 (x, y) F 2 (x, y).

42 (LMCS, p. 341) V.42 Then x y z fx fy fz G 1 (x, y, z) G 2 (x, y, z) G(x, y, z) a a a b b b a a b b b a a b a b a b a b b b a a b a a a b b b a b a b a b b a a a b b b b a a a so x y F 1 (x, y) F 2 (x, y) F(x, y) a a a b b a b b 0 1 1

43 (LMCS, p. 342) V.43 Let F be a sentence and S a structure. Then F is true in S provided one of the following holds: F is rt 1 t n and r S (t S 1,..., ts n ) holds; F is t 1 t 2 and t S 1 = ts 2 ; F is G and G is not true in S; F is G H and at least one of G, H is true in S;

44 (LMCS, p. 342) V.44 F is G H and both of G, H are true in S; F is G H and G is not true in S or H is true in S; F is G H and both or neither of G, H is true in S; F is x G(x) and G S (a) is true for every a S; F is x G(x) and G S (a) is true for some a S. If F is not true in S, then we say F is false in S.

45 (LMCS, p ) V.45 Given a first order language L, let F be a sentence, S a set of sentences, and S a structure for this language. S = F means F is true in S. F is valid if it is true in all L structures. S = S means every sentence F in S is true in S. Sat(S) means S is satisfiable. S = F means every model of S is a model of F. We say F is a consequence of S.

46 (LMCS, p. 343) V.46 The Propositional Skeleton (A simple test for having a one element model.) The propositional skeleton, Skel(F), of a formula is defined as follows: Delete all quantifiers and terms. Replace with 1. Replace the relation symbols r with propositional variables R.

47 (LMCS, p. 343) V.47 Theorem F has a one element model iff Skel(F) is satisfiable. If Skel(F) is satisfiable, then choose an evaluation e that makes it true. Let r S (a,..., a) hold iff e(r) = 1 for r R. Let f S (a,..., a) = a for f F.

48 (LMCS, p. 343) V.48 To illustrate this, we consider the first order sentence F given by x y ( (x < y) z ((x < z) (fz y))). Then Skel(F) is the propositional formula P P 1 This is satisfiable by evaluating P as 0, so F has a one element model on the set {a}, namely < a a 0, and fa = a

49 (LMCS, p. 344) V.49 Equivalent Sentences The sentences F and G are equivalent, written F G, if they are true of the same L structures S, that is, for all structures S we have S = F iff S = G. x ( (x 0) y (x y 1)) and x y ( (x 0) (x y 1)) are equivalent. Proposition The sentences F and G are equivalent iff F G is a valid sentence.

50 (LMCS, p. 344) V.50 Equivalent Formulas Two formulas F(x 1,..., x n ) and G(x 1,..., x n ) are equivalent, written F(x 1,..., x n ) G(x 1,..., x n ), iff F and G define the same relation on any L structure S, that is, F S = G S. (x 0) y (x y 1) and y ( (x 0) (x y 1)) are equivalent.

51 (LMCS, p. 345) V.51 Proposition The formulas F( x) and G( x) are equivalent iff x(f( x) G( x)) is a valid sentence. Proposition The relation is an equivalence relation on sentences as well as on formulas. This is immediate from the definition of and the fact that ordinary equality (=) is an equivalence relation.

52 (LMCS, p. 346) V.52 Fundamental Equivalences x F x ( F) x F x ( F) ( x F) G x (F G) if x is not free in G ( x F) G x (F G) if x is not free in G ( x F) G x (F G) if x is not free in G ( x F) G x (F G) if x is not free in G ( x F) G x (F G) if x is not free in G ( x F) G x (F G) if x is not free in G F ( x G) x (F G) if x is not free in F F ( x G) x (F G) if x is not free in F x (F G) ( x F) ( x G) x (F G) ( x F) ( x G)

53 (LMCS, p. 346) V.53 Notes on the Fundamental Equivalences The first two, combined with the fundamental laws from propositional logic, are very useful in practice, e.g., the statement f is continuous at x: ε((ε > 0) δ((δ > 0) y( x y < δ fx fy < ε))), negates to f is not continuous at x: ε((ε > 0) δ((δ > 0) y(( x y < δ) ( fx fy < ε)))

54 (LMCS, p. 346) V.54 Comment If x occurs free in G then we cannot conclude ( x F) G x (F G), for example, ( x(x < 0)) (0 < x) and x((x < 0) (0 < x)) are not equivalent, for in the natural numbers the first is true of positive numbers x, whereas the second is false in the natural numbers.

55 (LMCS, p. 346) V.55 For implication we have: ( x F) G ( x F) G x ( F) G x ( F G) x (F G) To see that x (F G) ( x F) ( x G) need not be true consider the following example: x ((0 x) (0 < x)) and ( x (0 x)) ( x (0 < x)) And to see that x (F G) ( x F) ( x G) need not be true consider the example: x ((0 x) (0 < x)) and ( x (0 x)) ( x (0 < x))

56 (LMCS, p. 347) V.56 Replacement and Substitution Equivalent propositional formulas lead to equivalent first order formulas as follows. If F(P 1,..., P n ) and G(P 1,..., P n ) are equivalent propositional formulas, then for any sequence H 1,..., H n of first order formulas we have F(H 1,..., H n ) G(H 1,..., H n ) Example (P Q) P Q holds, so we have, in first order logic, ( ( x(x x 1)) ( x y(x y y x)) ) ( x(x x 1) ) ( x y(x y y x) )

57 (LMCS, p. 347) V.57 Equivalence is compatible with our connectives and quantifiers in the obvious sense. Lemma Suppose F 1 G 1 and F 2 G 2. Then F 1 G 1 F 1 F 2 G 1 G 2 F 1 F 2 G 1 G 2 F 1 F 2 G 1 G 2 F 1 F 2 G 1 G 2 x F 1 x G 1 x F 1 x G 1.

58 (LMCS, p. 347) V.58 This leads us to the basic replacement theorem for first order logic. Replacement Theorem If F G then H( F ) H( G ). Example Since ( ( x(x x 1)) ( x y(x y y x)) ) ( x(x x 1) ) ( x y(x y y x) ) we have ( x y(x < y)) ( ( x(x x 1)) ( x y(x y y x)) ) ( x y(x < y)) ( x(x x 1) ) ( x y(x y y x) )

59 (LMCS, p. 348) V.59 Substitution in first-order logic often requires the need to rename variables. We need to be careful with renaming variables to avoid binding any newly introduced occurrences of variables. Given a first order formula F, define a conjugate of F to be any formula F obtained by renaming the occurrences of bound variables of F so that no free occurrences of variables in F become bound. Keep bound occurrences of distinct variables distinct.

60 (LMCS, p ) V.60 Conjugates are equivalent: If F is a conjugate of F, then F F. Thus y(x y 1) w(x w 1). Substitution Theorem If F(x 1,..., x n ) G(x 1,..., x n ) and t 1,..., t n are terms, then Thus from follows F (t 1,..., t n ) G (t 1,..., t n ). y(x y 1) y( (x y 1)) u((y + w) u 1) u( ((y + w) u 1))

61 (LMCS, p. 349) V.61 Prenex Form A formula F is in prenex form if it looks like Q 1 x 1 Q n x n G where the Q i are quantifiers and G has no occurrences of quantifiers. A formula with no occurrences of quantifiers is called an open formula. The formula x ( (rxy) u (ruy) ) is not in prenex form, but it is equivalent to the prenex form formula x u ( (rxy) (ruy) ).

62 (LMCS, p ) V.62 Theorem Every formula is equivalent to a formula in prenex form. The following steps put F in prenex form: Rename the quantified variables so that distinct occurrences of quantifiers bind distinct variables, and no free variable is equal to a bound variable

63 (LMCS, p ) V.63 Thus change z((rzy) y((rxy) y(ryx))) to z((rzy) u((rxu) w(rwx))) Eliminate all occurrences of and using G H ( G H) ( H G) G H G H The above example becomes z( (rzy) u((rxu) w(rwx)))

64 (LMCS, p ) V.64 Pull the quantifiers to the front by repeated use of the following (F G) ( F G) (F G) ( F G) G ( x H) x (G H) G ( x H) x (G H) G ( x H) x (G H) G ( x H) x (G H) ( x G) H x (G H) ( x G) H x (G H) ( x G) H x (G H) ( x G) H x (G H) x G x G x G x G

65 (LMCS, p ) V.65 Applying these steps to z( (rzy) u((rxu) w(rwx))) gives z( (rzy) u((rxu) w(rwx))) z( (rzy) u( ((rxu) w(rwx)))) z u( (rzy) ((rxu) w(rwx))) z u( (rzy) ( (rxu) ( w(rwx)))) z u( (rzy) ( (rxu) w( (rwx)))) z u( (rzy) w( (rxu) ( (rwx)))) z u w( (rzy) ( (rxu) ( (rwx))))

66 (LMCS, p. 352) V.66 Valid Arguments Now we are working with sentences in a fixed first order language L. An argument F 1,, F n F is valid (or correct) in first order logic provided every structure S that makes F 1,..., F n true also makes F true, that is, for all S S = {F 1,..., F n } implies S = F.

67 (LMCS, p. 352) V.67 Proposition An argument F 1,, F n F in first order logic is valid iff F 1 F n F is a valid sentence; and this holds iff {F 1, F n, F} is not satisfiable.

68 (LMCS, p. 352) V.68 Example The work in Chapter 3 concerned equations. In first-order logic we treat equations as universally quantified sentences: x(s( x) t( x)) The argument x y u v (x y u v) x y z ((x y) z x (y z)) is valid. This is evident by considering that if a structure S satisfies the premiss then all multiplications give the same value. But then the multiplication must be associative.

69 (LMCS, p. 352) V.69 The argument y x (rxy) x y (rxy) is valid. To see this suppose S is a structure satisfying the premiss. Then choose an element a from S such that x (rxa) holds. From this we can conclude that x y (rxy) also holds since we can let y be a. We have demonstrated the validity of the above arguments by appealing to our reasoning skills in mathematics. It is fair to ask if one can now sit down and write out all the axioms and rules that one would ever need to justify valid arguments in first-order logic.

70 (LMCS, p. 352) V.70 This question was posed by Hilbert and Ackerman in 1928 in their slender book, the elementary and famous Principles of Logic. They proposed a collection of first-order axioms and rules of inference, and noted that they were correct rules of reasoning. But were they enough, that is, was their system complete? They said in their book that their proof system was sufficient for doing all the things they tried with first-order logic, and indeed asked if it was complete.

71 (LMCS) V.71 The brilliant young student Kurt Gödel in Vienna answered their question within a year, in the affirmitive, and used it for his PhD Thesis. This is the famous Gödel Completeness Theorem, discussed in Chapter 6 of the text. It says S = ϕ iff S ϕ. Another question that was prominent at the time was whether or not the powerful logical system of Principia Mathematica, developed by Whitehead and Russell in 3 volumes ( ), was powerful enough to do all mathematics, forever.

72 (LMCS) V.72 This system of logic was higher-order, meaning that one could quantify over things other than just the variables for the elements of the universe. One could also quantify over relation symbols (and function symbols). Thus they could write r(rx ry) as a definition of x y. It was known, from looking at the examples in Principia, that all known mathematical proofs could be written up in this system (if one so desired). So perhaps this is all one would ever need. Within a year of his PhD Gödel had answered this (much more difficult) question as well.

73 (LMCS) V.73 To everyones astonishment he put together a (lowly) first-order sentence F in the language of the natural numbers N = {N, +,, <, 0, 1} that he could show was True of N But Principia Mathematica was not strong enough to prove it. (Assuming that the proof system of Principia did not lead to a contradiction G G, for then one could derive every formula!) This is the famous Gödel Incompleteness Theorem.

74 (LMCS, p. 353) V.74 Counterexamples To show that an argument F 1,, F n F is not valid it suffices to find a single structure S such that each of the premisses F 1,, F n is true in S, but the conclusion F is false in S. Such a structure S is a counterexample to the argument. The argument x y (rxy) y x (rxy) is not valid; a two element graph gives a counterexample: a b

75 (LMCS, p ) V.75 Skolemization Skolem, following the work of Löwenheim (1915), gave us a technique to convert a first-order sentence F into a sentence F in prenex form, with only universal quantifiers, such that F is satisfiable iff F is satisfiable. Universally quantified sentences are apparently much easier to understand. This has provided one of the powerful techniques in automated theorem proving.

76 (LMCS, p ) V.76 One takes a given assertion in mathematics and expresses it as a first-order sentence F. This means we want the assertion to be true iff F is valid (i.e., true in all structures). This sentence F is valid iff F is not satisfiable. One replaces F by a universal sentence F obtained by Skolem s process. Then F is valid iff F is not satisfiable. One puts the matrix of F in conjunctive form.

77 (LMCS, p ) V.77 Then it is easy to replace F by a finite set of clauses C such that F is not satisfiable iff C is not satisfiable. Namely the clauses come from the conjuncts of the matrix of F. Now one has F is valid iff C is not satisfiable. To show C is not satisfiable one can apply resolution theorem proving. Now we look at the details of Skolem s process, called skolemization.

78 (LMCS, p ) V.78 Lemma Given the sentence y G(y), augment the language with a new constant c and form the sentence G(c). Then Sat ( y G(y) ) iff Sat ( G(c) ). Given the sentence x 1 x n y G( x, y), augment the language with a new n ary function symbol f and form the sentence x 1 x n G ( x, f( x)). Then Sat ( x y G( x, y) ) iff Sat ( x G ( x, f( x)) ).

79 (LMCS, p. 354) V.79 Proof In each step we can expand a model of the sentence on the left hand side to one on the right hand side by adding the appropriately designated element for the constant, or by adding an appropriate function f. Conversely, we can take a model of the sentence on the right hand side and remove the constant symbol, respectively function symbol, and get a model for the left hand side.

80 (LMCS, p. 354) V.80 Definition A first order formula F is universal if it is in prenex form and all quantifiers are universal, that is, F is of the form x G, where G is quantifier free. G is called the matrix of F. Example x y z ((x y) (y z) (x z)) } {{ } matrix

81 (LMCS, p. 354) V.81 Theorem Given a first order sentence F, there is an effective procedure for finding a universal sentence F (usually in an extended language) such that Sat(F) iff Sat(F ). Furthermore, we can choose F such that every model of F can be expanded to a model of F, and every model of F can be reducted to a model of F. Proof First, we put F in prenex form. Then we just apply the Lemma repeatedly until there are no existential quantifiers.

82 (LMCS, p. 354) V.82 The process of converting a sentence to such a universal sentence is called skolemizing. The new constants and functions are called skolem constants and skolem functions. Example To skolemize the sentence F = x y ((x < y) z ((x < z) (z < y))) we first put it in prenex form F = x y z ((x < y) (x < z) (z < y))

83 (LMCS, p. 354) V.83 Applying the Lemma, we introduce a new binary function symbol, say f, and arrive at the universal sentence F = x y ((x < y) (x < f(x, y)) (f(x, y) < y)) The structure Q = (Q, <), consisting of the real numbers with the usual <, satisfies F. If we choose f(a, b) = a+b 2 for a, b Q, we see that the expansion (Q, <, f) of Q satisfies F. Now we extend these ideas to sets of sentences.

84 (LMCS, p. 356) V.84 Theorem Given a set of first order sentences S, there is a set S of universal sentences (usually in an extended language) such that Sat(S) iff Sat(S ). Furthermore, every model of S can be expanded to a model of S, and every model of S can be reducted to a model of S. Proof We skolemize each sentence in S as before, making sure that distinct sentences do not have any common skolem constants or functions.

85 (LMCS, p. 356) V.85 This theorem is at the heart of the translation from first order logic to clause logic, as we shall see in the next section. Example We skolemize the set of sentences { x y z (x < y + z), x y z ( (x < y + z))} and obtain a set of universal sentences { y (a < y + fy), x ( (b < y + gy))}.

86 (LMCS, p. 356) V.86 The Reduction of First-Order Logic to Clause Logic Now we show that first order formulas can be reduced to the predicate clause logic, and thus to the propositional clause logic. First we want to look at some basic translations between clauses and first order formulas. A clause C = {L 1 ( x),..., L k ( x)} is considered as the universal sentence F C = x (L 1 ( x) L k ( x)) in first-order logic.

87 (LMCS, p. 356) V.87 For indeed S = C iff S = F C. There is also a translation from universal first order sentences to clauses. Lemma One can effectively construct, for any given universal sentence F, a finite set C F of clauses such that for any structure S S = F iff S = C F.

88 (LMCS, p. 356) V.88 Proof Let F be x G( x) with G( x) quantifier free. Put G( x) in conjunctive form G( x) G 1 ( x) G k ( x), where each G i ( x) is a disjunction of literals. Then x G( x) x (G 1 ( x) G k ( x)) F 1 F k where F i = x G i ( x). Thus S = F iff S = {F 1,, F k }. Let C i be the clause C Fi associated with the matrix of F i. Then S = F iff S = C F

89 (LMCS, p. 356) V.89 Example Let F = x y z (rx ry rz). First, we put the matrix of F in conjunctive form: rx ry rz rx (ry rz) ( rx ry) ( rx rz). Now we can read off the clauses from the conjuncts, namely, C F = { { rx, ry}, { rx, rz} }.

90 (LMCS, p. 358) V.90 Definition For S a set of universal sentences let C S = C F, F S the union of the collection of all sets C F of clauses obtained from the universal sentences F in S. Lemma Given a set S of universal sentences and S a structure, S = S iff S = C S. Thus Sat(S) iff Sat(C S ).

91 (LMCS, p. 358) V.91 Now we can formulate a connection between satisfiability of a set of first order sentences (not necessarily universal) and a set of clauses. Lemma Given a set S of first order sentences, let S be a skolemization of S. Then Sat(S) iff Sat(C S ).

92 (LMCS, p. 358) V.92 Example For S = { x y (rxy), y x (rxy)} we have S = { y (ray), x (rxb)} C S = {{ray}, { rxb}}. We can easily derive the empty clause from C S (in one resolution step), so C S is not satisfiable. Thus S is also not satisfiable. Consequently, the sentence F = ( x y (rxy)) ( y x (rxy)), obtained by conjuncting the members of S, is not satisfiable. So F is a valid sentence. Clearly F ( x y (rxy)) ( y x (rxy))

93 (LMCS, p. 359) V.93 Now we can state the fundamental transformation from first order logic to clause logic. Theorem Given S, a set of sentences, and F, a sentence, S = F iff Sat( C S( F) ), where S( F) is the set S { F}, and the prime symbol refers to taking the skolemization, as before. Thus the argument S F is valid iff one cannot satisfy the set C S( F) of clauses.

### Chapter 1. Logic and Proof

Chapter 1. Logic and Proof 1.1 Remark: A little over 100 years ago, it was found that some mathematical proofs contained paradoxes, and these paradoxes could be used to prove statements that were known

### vertex, 369 disjoint pairwise, 395 disjoint sets, 236 disjunction, 33, 36 distributive laws

Index absolute value, 135 141 additive identity, 254 additive inverse, 254 aleph, 466 algebra of sets, 245, 278 antisymmetric relation, 387 arcsine function, 349 arithmetic sequence, 208 arrow diagram,

### INTRODUCTORY SET THEORY

M.Sc. program in mathematics INTRODUCTORY SET THEORY Katalin Károlyi Department of Applied Analysis, Eötvös Loránd University H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 6-8. CONTENTS 1. SETS Set, equal sets, subset,

### DISCRETE MATHEMATICS W W L CHEN

DISCRETE MATHEMATICS W W L CHEN c W W L Chen, 1982, 2008. This chapter originates from material used by the author at Imperial College, University of London, between 1981 and 1990. It is available free

### MAT2400 Analysis I. A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions

MAT2400 Analysis I A brief introduction to proofs, sets, and functions In Analysis I there is a lot of manipulations with sets and functions. It is probably also the first course where you have to take

### The Foundations: Logic and Proofs. Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs

The Foundations: Logic and Proofs Chapter 1, Part III: Proofs Rules of Inference Section 1.6 Section Summary Valid Arguments Inference Rules for Propositional Logic Using Rules of Inference to Build Arguments

### Inference Rules and Proof Methods

Inference Rules and Proof Methods Winter 2010 Introduction Rules of Inference and Formal Proofs Proofs in mathematics are valid arguments that establish the truth of mathematical statements. An argument

### Chapter I Logic and Proofs

MATH 1130 1 Discrete Structures Chapter I Logic and Proofs Propositions A proposition is a statement that is either true (T) or false (F), but or both. s Propositions: 1. I am a man.. I am taller than

### CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 7 GENERAL PROOF SYSTEMS 1 Introduction Proof systems are built to prove statements. They can be thought as an inference machine with special statements, called provable statements, or sometimes

### Handout #1: Mathematical Reasoning

Math 101 Rumbos Spring 2010 1 Handout #1: Mathematical Reasoning 1 Propositional Logic A proposition is a mathematical statement that it is either true or false; that is, a statement whose certainty or

### 4 Domain Relational Calculus

4 Domain Relational Calculus We now present two relational calculi that we will compare to RA. First, what is the difference between an algebra and a calculus? The usual story is that the algebra RA is

### An Introduction to First-Order Logic

Outline An Introduction to K. 1 1 Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering West Virginia University Syntax, Semantics and Outline Outline 1 The Syntax of 2 of Expressions Model Different

### Foundations of Artificial Intelligence

Foundations of Artificial Intelligence 7. Propositional Logic Rational Thinking, Logic, Resolution Wolfram Burgard, Bernhard Nebel and Martin Riedmiller Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Contents 1 Agents

### Valid formulas, games and network protocols

Valid formulas, games and network protocols Jean-Louis Krivine & Yves Legrandgérard Paris VII University, CNRS November 14, 2007 Introduction We describe a remarkable relation between a fundamental notion

### Proof: A logical argument establishing the truth of the theorem given the truth of the axioms and any previously proven theorems.

Math 232 - Discrete Math 2.1 Direct Proofs and Counterexamples Notes Axiom: Proposition that is assumed to be true. Proof: A logical argument establishing the truth of the theorem given the truth of the

### Section 1. Statements and Truth Tables. Definition 1.1: A mathematical statement is a declarative sentence that is true or false, but not both.

M3210 Supplemental Notes: Basic Logic Concepts In this course we will examine statements about mathematical concepts and relationships between these concepts (definitions, theorems). We will also consider

### Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering. Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson

Mathematics for Computer Science/Software Engineering Notes for the course MSM1F3 Dr. R. A. Wilson October 1996 Chapter 1 Logic Lecture no. 1. We introduce the concept of a proposition, which is a statement

### CS 2336 Discrete Mathematics

CS 2336 Discrete Mathematics Lecture 2 Logic: Predicate Calculus 1 Outline Predicates Quantifiers Binding Applications Logical Equivalences 2 Predicates In mathematics arguments, we will often see sentences

### Discrete Mathematics, Chapter : Predicate Logic

Discrete Mathematics, Chapter 1.4-1.5: Predicate Logic Richard Mayr University of Edinburgh, UK Richard Mayr (University of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 1.4-1.5 1 / 23 Outline 1 Predicates

### Predicate Logic Review

Predicate Logic Review UC Berkeley, Philosophy 142, Spring 2016 John MacFarlane 1 Grammar A term is an individual constant or a variable. An individual constant is a lowercase letter from the beginning

### Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao, David Tse Note 2

CS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Fall 2009 Satish Rao, David Tse Note 2 Proofs Intuitively, the concept of proof should already be familiar We all like to assert things, and few of us

### Fundamentals of Mathematics Lecture 6: Propositional Logic

Fundamentals of Mathematics Lecture 6: Propositional Logic Guan-Shieng Huang National Chi Nan University, Taiwan Spring, 2008 1 / 39 Connectives Propositional Connectives I 1 Negation: (not A) A A T F

### 2. Methods of Proof Types of Proofs. Suppose we wish to prove an implication p q. Here are some strategies we have available to try.

2. METHODS OF PROOF 69 2. Methods of Proof 2.1. Types of Proofs. Suppose we wish to prove an implication p q. Here are some strategies we have available to try. Trivial Proof: If we know q is true then

### 4. FIRST-ORDER LOGIC

4. FIRST-ORDER LOGIC Contents 4.1: Splitting the atom: names, predicates and relations 4.2: Structures 4.3: Quantification:, 4.4: Syntax 4.5: Semantics 4.6: De Morgan s laws for and 4.7: Truth trees for

### Foundations of mathematics

Foundations of mathematics 1. First foundations of mathematics 1.1. Introduction to the foundations of mathematics Mathematics, theories and foundations Sylvain Poirier http://settheory.net/ Mathematics

### INTRODUCTION TO PROOFS: HOMEWORK SOLUTIONS

INTRODUCTION TO PROOFS: HOMEWORK SOLUTIONS STEVEN HEILMAN Contents 1. Homework 1 1 2. Homework 2 6 3. Homework 3 10 4. Homework 4 16 5. Homework 5 19 6. Homework 6 21 7. Homework 7 25 8. Homework 8 28

### Phil 2440 Chapter 5: Predicate Logic Symbolizations

Phil 2440 Chapter 5: Predicate Logic Symbolizations To discuss today: Atomic sentences in predicate logic Quantifiers Some important kinds of sentences Well-formed formulas About the predicate calculus

### Consistency, completeness of undecidable preposition of Principia Mathematica. Tanmay Jaipurkar

Consistency, completeness of undecidable preposition of Principia Mathematica Tanmay Jaipurkar October 21, 2013 Abstract The fallowing paper discusses the inconsistency and undecidable preposition of Principia

### Satisfiability Checking

Satisfiability Checking First-Order Logic Prof. Dr. Erika Ábrahám RWTH Aachen University Informatik 2 LuFG Theory of Hybrid Systems WS 14/15 Satisfiability Checking Prof. Dr. Erika Ábrahám (RWTH Aachen

### Section 7.1 First-Order Predicate Calculus predicate Existential Quantifier Universal Quantifier.

Section 7.1 First-Order Predicate Calculus Predicate calculus studies the internal structure of sentences where subjects are applied to predicates existentially or universally. A predicate describes a

### it is easy to see that α = a

21. Polynomial rings Let us now turn out attention to determining the prime elements of a polynomial ring, where the coefficient ring is a field. We already know that such a polynomial ring is a UF. Therefore

### Sets and Cardinality Notes for C. F. Miller

Sets and Cardinality Notes for 620-111 C. F. Miller Semester 1, 2000 Abstract These lecture notes were compiled in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics in the University of Melbourne for the use

### Chapter 4, Arithmetic in F [x] Polynomial arithmetic and the division algorithm.

Chapter 4, Arithmetic in F [x] Polynomial arithmetic and the division algorithm. We begin by defining the ring of polynomials with coefficients in a ring R. After some preliminary results, we specialize

### 13 Infinite Sets. 13.1 Injections, Surjections, and Bijections. mcs-ftl 2010/9/8 0:40 page 379 #385

mcs-ftl 2010/9/8 0:40 page 379 #385 13 Infinite Sets So you might be wondering how much is there to say about an infinite set other than, well, it has an infinite number of elements. Of course, an infinite

### WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT?

WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? introduction Many students seem to have trouble with the notion of a mathematical proof. People that come to a course like Math 216, who certainly

### Cartesian Products and Relations

Cartesian Products and Relations Definition (Cartesian product) If A and B are sets, the Cartesian product of A and B is the set A B = {(a, b) :(a A) and (b B)}. The following points are worth special

### Predicate Logic. Lucia Moura. Winter Predicates and Quantifiers Nested Quantifiers Using Predicate Calculus

Predicate Logic Winter 2010 Predicates A Predicate is a declarative sentence whose true/false value depends on one or more variables. The statement x is greater than 3 has two parts: the subject: x is

### Predicate Logic. Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

Predicate Logic Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Note: We need logic laws that work for statements involving quantities like some and all. In English, the predicate is

### CS510 Software Engineering

CS510 Software Engineering Propositional Logic Asst. Prof. Mathias Payer Department of Computer Science Purdue University TA: Scott A. Carr Slides inspired by Xiangyu Zhang http://nebelwelt.net/teaching/15-cs510-se

### Chapter 1 LOGIC AND PROOF

Chapter 1 LOGIC AND PROOF To be able to understand mathematics and mathematical arguments, it is necessary to have a solid understanding of logic and the way in which known facts can be combined to prove

### Summary Last Lecture. Automated Reasoning. Outline of the Lecture. Definition sequent calculus. Theorem (Normalisation and Strong Normalisation)

Summary Summary Last Lecture sequent calculus Automated Reasoning Georg Moser Institute of Computer Science @ UIBK Winter 013 (Normalisation and Strong Normalisation) let Π be a proof in minimal logic

### A Beginner s Guide to Modern Set Theory

A Beginner s Guide to Modern Set Theory Martin Dowd Product of Hyperon Software PO Box 4161 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 www.hyperonsoft.com Copyright c 2010 by Martin Dowd 1. Introduction..... 1 2. Formal logic......

### MATH 55: HOMEWORK #2 SOLUTIONS

MATH 55: HOMEWORK # SOLUTIONS ERIC PETERSON * 1. SECTION 1.5: NESTED QUANTIFIERS 1.1. Problem 1.5.8. Determine the truth value of each of these statements if the domain of each variable consists of all

### Lecture 8: Resolution theorem-proving

Comp24412 Symbolic AI Lecture 8: Resolution theorem-proving Ian Pratt-Hartmann Room KB2.38: email: ipratt@cs.man.ac.uk 2014 15 In the previous Lecture, we met SATCHMO, a first-order theorem-prover implemented

### An Innocent Investigation

An Innocent Investigation D. Joyce, Clark University January 2006 The beginning. Have you ever wondered why every number is either even or odd? I don t mean to ask if you ever wondered whether every number

### ON FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL-FREE LOGIC PROGRAMS

PROCEEDINGS OF THE YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY Physical and Mathematical Sciences 2012 1 p. 43 48 ON FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL-FREE LOGIC PROGRAMS I nf or m at i cs L. A. HAYKAZYAN * Chair of Programming and Information

### This chapter is all about cardinality of sets. At first this looks like a

CHAPTER Cardinality of Sets This chapter is all about cardinality of sets At first this looks like a very simple concept To find the cardinality of a set, just count its elements If A = { a, b, c, d },

### This asserts two sets are equal iff they have the same elements, that is, a set is determined by its elements.

3. Axioms of Set theory Before presenting the axioms of set theory, we first make a few basic comments about the relevant first order logic. We will give a somewhat more detailed discussion later, but

### Encoding Mathematics in First-Order Logic

Applied Logic Lecture 19 CS 486 Spring 2005 Thursday, April 14, 2005 Encoding Mathematics in First-Order Logic Over the past few lectures, we have seen the syntax and the semantics of first-order logic,

### Problem Set. Problem Set #2. Math 5322, Fall December 3, 2001 ANSWERS

Problem Set Problem Set #2 Math 5322, Fall 2001 December 3, 2001 ANSWERS i Problem 1. [Problem 18, page 32] Let A P(X) be an algebra, A σ the collection of countable unions of sets in A, and A σδ the collection

### OHJ-2306 Introduction to Theoretical Computer Science, Fall 2012 8.11.2012

276 The P vs. NP problem is a major unsolved problem in computer science It is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute to carry a \$ 1,000,000 prize for the

### Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof. Harper Langston New York University

Discrete Mathematics Lecture 3 Elementary Number Theory and Methods of Proof Harper Langston New York University Proof and Counterexample Discovery and proof Even and odd numbers number n from Z is called

### CHAPTER 3. Methods of Proofs. 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs

CHAPTER 3 Methods of Proofs 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs 1.1. Basic Terminology. An axiom is a statement that is given to be true. A rule of inference is a logical rule that is used to deduce

### LOGICAL INFERENCE & PROOFs. Debdeep Mukhopadhyay Dept of CSE, IIT Madras

LOGICAL INFERENCE & PROOFs Debdeep Mukhopadhyay Dept of CSE, IIT Madras Defn A theorem is a mathematical assertion which can be shown to be true. A proof is an argument which establishes the truth of a

### MATH20302 Propositional Logic. Mike Prest School of Mathematics Alan Turing Building Room

MATH20302 Propositional Logic Mike Prest School of Mathematics Alan Turing Building Room 1.120 mprest@manchester.ac.uk April 10, 2015 Contents I Propositional Logic 3 1 Propositional languages 4 1.1 Propositional

### Math 3000 Running Glossary

Math 3000 Running Glossary Last Updated on: July 15, 2014 The definition of items marked with a must be known precisely. Chapter 1: 1. A set: A collection of objects called elements. 2. The empty set (

### Labeling outerplanar graphs with maximum degree three

Labeling outerplanar graphs with maximum degree three Xiangwen Li 1 and Sanming Zhou 2 1 Department of Mathematics Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China 2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics

### CARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE

CARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE With the notion of bijection at hand, it is easy to formalize the idea that two finite sets have the same number of elements: we just need to verify

### Graphs without proper subgraphs of minimum degree 3 and short cycles

Graphs without proper subgraphs of minimum degree 3 and short cycles Lothar Narins, Alexey Pokrovskiy, Tibor Szabó Department of Mathematics, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany. August 22, 2014 Abstract

### Lecture 17 : Equivalence and Order Relations DRAFT

CS/Math 240: Introduction to Discrete Mathematics 3/31/2011 Lecture 17 : Equivalence and Order Relations Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Dalibor Zelený DRAFT Last lecture we introduced the notion

### SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK

SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET Automated Theorem Proving av Tom Everitt 2010 - No 8 MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET, 106 91 STOCKHOLM

### EQUATIONAL LOGIC AND ABSTRACT ALGEBRA * ABSTRACT

EQUATIONAL LOGIC AND ABSTRACT ALGEBRA * Taje I. Ramsamujh Florida International University Mathematics Department ABSTRACT Equational logic is a formalization of the deductive methods encountered in studying

### Induction. Margaret M. Fleck. 10 October These notes cover mathematical induction and recursive definition

Induction Margaret M. Fleck 10 October 011 These notes cover mathematical induction and recursive definition 1 Introduction to induction At the start of the term, we saw the following formula for computing

### Applications of Methods of Proof

CHAPTER 4 Applications of Methods of Proof 1. Set Operations 1.1. Set Operations. The set-theoretic operations, intersection, union, and complementation, defined in Chapter 1.1 Introduction to Sets are

### Basic Proof Techniques

Basic Proof Techniques David Ferry dsf43@truman.edu September 13, 010 1 Four Fundamental Proof Techniques When one wishes to prove the statement P Q there are four fundamental approaches. This document

### MA651 Topology. Lecture 6. Separation Axioms.

MA651 Topology. Lecture 6. Separation Axioms. This text is based on the following books: Fundamental concepts of topology by Peter O Neil Elements of Mathematics: General Topology by Nicolas Bourbaki Counterexamples

### Introduction to Proofs

Chapter 1 Introduction to Proofs 1.1 Preview of Proof This section previews many of the key ideas of proof and cites [in brackets] the sections where they are discussed thoroughly. All of these ideas are

### Introduction to Logic in Computer Science: Autumn 2006

Introduction to Logic in Computer Science: Autumn 2006 Ulle Endriss Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam Ulle Endriss 1 Plan for Today Now that we have a basic understanding

### Invalidity in Predicate Logic

Invalidity in Predicate Logic So far we ve got a method for establishing that a predicate logic argument is valid: do a derivation. But we ve got no method for establishing invalidity. In propositional

### SETS, RELATIONS, AND FUNCTIONS

September 27, 2009 and notations Common Universal Subset and Power Set Cardinality Operations A set is a collection or group of objects or elements or members (Cantor 1895). the collection of the four

### Finite Sets. Theorem 5.1. Two non-empty finite sets have the same cardinality if and only if they are equivalent.

MATH 337 Cardinality Dr. Neal, WKU We now shall prove that the rational numbers are a countable set while R is uncountable. This result shows that there are two different magnitudes of infinity. But we

### Module MA1S11 (Calculus) Michaelmas Term 2016 Section 3: Functions

Module MA1S11 (Calculus) Michaelmas Term 2016 Section 3: Functions D. R. Wilkins Copyright c David R. Wilkins 2016 Contents 3 Functions 43 3.1 Functions between Sets...................... 43 3.2 Injective

### Trees and Fundamental Circuits

Trees and Fundamental Circuits Tree A connected graph without any circuits. o must have at least one vertex. o definition implies that it must be a simple graph. o only finite trees are being considered

### Higher-Order Logic. Specification and Verification with Higher-Order Logic

Higher-Order Logic Specification and Verification with Higher-Order Logic Arnd Poetzsch-Heffter Software Technology Group Fachbereich Informatik Technische Universität Kaiserslautern Sommersemester 2010

### 2.3 Convex Constrained Optimization Problems

42 CHAPTER 2. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN CONVEX OPTIMIZATION Theorem 15 Let f : R n R and h : R R. Consider g(x) = h(f(x)) for all x R n. The function g is convex if either of the following two conditions

### Factoring Polynomials

Factoring Polynomials Sue Geller June 19, 2006 Factoring polynomials over the rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers has long been a standard topic of high school algebra. With the advent

### First-Order Logics and Truth Degrees

First-Order Logics and Truth Degrees George Metcalfe Mathematics Institute University of Bern LATD 2014, Vienna Summer of Logic, 15-19 July 2014 George Metcalfe (University of Bern) First-Order Logics

### Prime Numbers. Chapter Primes and Composites

Chapter 2 Prime Numbers The term factoring or factorization refers to the process of expressing an integer as the product of two or more integers in a nontrivial way, e.g., 42 = 6 7. Prime numbers are

### To define function and introduce operations on the set of functions. To investigate which of the field properties hold in the set of functions

Chapter 7 Functions This unit defines and investigates functions as algebraic objects. First, we define functions and discuss various means of representing them. Then we introduce operations on functions

### MATH 289 PROBLEM SET 1: INDUCTION. 1. The induction Principle The following property of the natural numbers is intuitively clear:

MATH 89 PROBLEM SET : INDUCTION The induction Principle The following property of the natural numbers is intuitively clear: Axiom Every nonempty subset of the set of nonnegative integers Z 0 = {0,,, 3,

### 3. Equivalence Relations. Discussion

3. EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 33 3. Equivalence Relations 3.1. Definition of an Equivalence Relations. Definition 3.1.1. A relation R on a set A is an equivalence relation if and only if R is reflexive, symmetric,

### Problems on Discrete Mathematics 1

Problems on Discrete Mathematics 1 Chung-Chih Li 2 Kishan Mehrotra 3 Syracuse University, New York L A TEX at January 11, 2007 (Part I) 1 No part of this book can be reproduced without permission from

### 9.2 Summation Notation

9. Summation Notation 66 9. Summation Notation In the previous section, we introduced sequences and now we shall present notation and theorems concerning the sum of terms of a sequence. We begin with a

### Sets and functions. {x R : x > 0}.

Sets and functions 1 Sets The language of sets and functions pervades mathematics, and most of the important operations in mathematics turn out to be functions or to be expressible in terms of functions.

### Introducing Functions

Functions 1 Introducing Functions A function f from a set A to a set B, written f : A B, is a relation f A B such that every element of A is related to one element of B; in logical notation 1. (a, b 1

### Chapter 1. Informal introdution to the axioms of ZF.

Chapter 1. Informal introdution to the axioms of ZF. 1.1. Extension. Our conception of sets comes from set of objects that we know well such as N, Q and R, and subsets we can form from these determined

### MATHS 315 Mathematical Logic

MATHS 315 Mathematical Logic Second Semester, 2006 Contents 2 Formal Statement Logic 1 2.1 Post production systems................................. 1 2.2 The system L.......................................

### Math Review. for the Quantitative Reasoning Measure of the GRE revised General Test

Math Review for the Quantitative Reasoning Measure of the GRE revised General Test www.ets.org Overview This Math Review will familiarize you with the mathematical skills and concepts that are important

### Fun With Nonstandard Models

Fun With Nonstandard Models A self-contained sequel to: 2500 Years of very Small Numbers David A. Ross Department of Mathematics University of Hawai i Outline of Talk: Slides 1..3 Random Blather Slides

### The Classes P and NP

The Classes P and NP We now shift gears slightly and restrict our attention to the examination of two families of problems which are very important to computer scientists. These families constitute the

### Discrete Mathematics, Chapter 5: Induction and Recursion

Discrete Mathematics, Chapter 5: Induction and Recursion Richard Mayr University of Edinburgh, UK Richard Mayr (University of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics. Chapter 5 1 / 20 Outline 1 Well-founded

### (Refer Slide Time: 1:41)

Discrete Mathematical Structures Dr. Kamala Krithivasan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture # 10 Sets Today we shall learn about sets. You must

### Correspondence analysis for strong three-valued logic

Correspondence analysis for strong three-valued logic A. Tamminga abstract. I apply Kooi and Tamminga s (2012) idea of correspondence analysis for many-valued logics to strong three-valued logic (K 3 ).

### WOLLONGONG COLLEGE AUSTRALIA. Diploma in Information Technology

First Name: Family Name: Student Number: Class/Tutorial: WOLLONGONG COLLEGE AUSTRALIA A College of the University of Wollongong Diploma in Information Technology Final Examination Spring Session 2008 WUCT121

### Predicate Logic. M.A.Galán, TDBA64, VT-03

Predicate Logic 1 Introduction There are certain arguments that seem to be perfectly logical, yet they cannot be specified by using propositional logic. All cats have tails. Tom is a cat. From these two

### The Predicate Calculus in AI

Last time, we: The Predicate Calculus in AI Motivated the use of Logic as a representational language for AI (Can derive new facts syntactically - simply by pushing symbols around) Described propositional

### 1.4 Predicates and Quantifiers

Can we express the following statement in propositional logic? Every computer has a CPU No 1 Can we express the following statement in propositional logic? No Every computer has a CPU Let's see the new

### CHAPTER SIX IRREDUCIBILITY AND FACTORIZATION 1. BASIC DIVISIBILITY THEORY

January 10, 2010 CHAPTER SIX IRREDUCIBILITY AND FACTORIZATION 1. BASIC DIVISIBILITY THEORY The set of polynomials over a field F is a ring, whose structure shares with the ring of integers many characteristics.