Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Truth, deduction, computation lecture c

497 views

Published on

My logic lectures at SCU
Quantifiers, part 2

Published in: Education, Technology, Spiritual
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

Views
Total views
497
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
8
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

### Truth, deduction, computation lecture c

1. 1. Truth, Deduction, Computation Lecture C Quantifiers, part 2 (desperation) Vlad Patryshev SCU 2013
2. 2. Remindштп Aristotelian Forms Aristotle says We write All P’s are Q’s ∀x (P(x) → Q(x)) Some P’s are Q’s ∃x (P(x) ∧ Q(x)) No P’s are Q’s ∀x (P(x) → ¬Q(x)) Some P’s are not Q’s ∃x (P(x) ∧ ¬Q(x))
3. 3. Now, by the way… Why is our logic “first order”? Because we can vary objects, but not properties. ● ∃x Good(x) ● ∃P P(scruffy) If we can vary formulas, we have “second order”
4. 4. Quantifiers are not easy ∀x (Cube(x)→Small(x)) ∀x Cube(x) ∀x Small(x) (this one works… but not tautologically?) You can check it, assume there are just x0 and x1...
5. 5. Quantifiers are not easy Say, x can be a or b (Cube(x)→Small(x)) Cube(x) Small(x) (this one works!)
6. 6. Quantifiers are not easy ∀x Cube(x) ∀x Small(x) ∀x Cube(x)∧Small(x) (this one works too… but not tautologically?) Can we do the same trick?
7. 7. Quantifiers are not easy ∃x (Cube(x)→Small(x)) ∃x Cube(x) ∃x Small(x) (this one works… but not tautologically?) Can we do the same trick?
8. 8. Quantifiers are not easy ∃x Cube(x) ∃x Small(x) ∃x Cube(x)∧Small(x) (oops, this one is no good!) Can we check?
9. 9. Quantifiers are not easy Say, x can be a or b Cube(a)∨Cube(b) Small(a)∨Small(b) (Cube(a)∧Small(a))∨(Cube(b)∧Small(a)) oops, this one is no good!
10. 10. Even the book can have it wrong... How about ∃x (x=x)?
11. 11. Compare these two: ● ∀x Cube(x) ∨ ∀x ¬Cube(x) ● ∀x Cube(x) ∨ ¬∀x Cube(x) (what would Aristotle say?)
12. 12. While Exercising: Reduce Complexity ∃y(P(y)∨R(y))→∀x(P(x)∧Q(x)))→(¬∀x(P(x)∧Q(x))→¬∃y(P(y)∨R (y))) follows from (A→B) → (¬B→¬A) which is a tautology This refactoring (known as “introduce a variable”) is called in the book
13. 13. Example of such reduction
14. 14. Problems with Tautology Does not work in FOL Propositional Logic FOL Vague General Notion of Truthfulness Tautology FO validity Logical truth Tautological consequence FO consequence Logical consequence Tautological equivalence FO equivalence Logical equivalence
15. 15. Examples of FOL validity 1. 2. 3. 4. ∀x SameSize(x,x) ∀x Cube(x)→ Cube(b) (Cube(b) ∧ b=c) → Cube(c) Small(b) ∧ SameSize(b,c) → Small(c) Are these valid? 1. 2. 3. 4. ∀x UgyanolyanMéretű(x,x) ∀x Куб(x)→ Куб(b) (კუბური(b) ∧ b=c) → კუბური(c) 小(b) ∧ UgyanolyanMéretű(b,c) → 小(c) Are these valid?
16. 16. “replacement method” - step 1 Is it valid? Is it valid?
17. 17. “replacement method” - step 2 Is it valid? Can we find a counterexample? (Not applicable this specific example!)
18. 18. Ok, let’s try exercise 10.10
19. 19. DeMorgan laws and quantifiers ● Can apply them from outside: ○ ¬(∃x Cube(x) ∧ ∀y Dodec(y)) is tautologically equivalent to ○ ¬∃x Cube(x) ∨ ¬∀y Dodec(y) ● Can apply them from inside: ○ ∀x (Cube(x) → Small(x)) is tautologically equivalent to ○ ∀x(¬Small(x) → ¬Cube(x)) (can “prove it” by assuming the opposite)
20. 20. Substitution of Equivalent WFF If P ⇔ Q, then S(P) ⇔ S(Q)
21. 21. DeMorgan Law for Quantifiers
22. 22. That’s it for today