I am having problems understanding the difference between validity and satisfiability.
Given the following:
(i) For all F, F is satisfiable or ~F is satisfiable.
(ii) For all F, F is valid or ~F is valid.
How do I prove which is true and which is false?
Statement (i) is true, as for all F, F will either be satisfiable, or ~F will be satisfiable (truth table). However, how do I go about solving for statement (ii)?
Any help is highly appreciated!
Aprilrocks92,
I don't blame you for being confused, because actually logicians, mathematicians, heck even those philosopher types use the words validity differently sometimes.
Trying not to overcomplicate, I'll give you a thin definition: a conclusion if valid when it is true whenever the premises are true. We also say, given a suitably defined logic, that the conclusion follows as a "logical consequence" of the premises.
On the other hand, satisfisability means that there exists a valuation of the non logical symbols in the formula F that makes the formula true in the logic.
So I should probably mention the difference between semantics and syntax to explain. The syntax of your logic is all those logical and non logical symbols, and the deductive rules that enable you to make "steps" towards proof in the logic. My definition of satisfisability above mentioned the word "valuation"- now how does that fit? Well the answer is that you need to supply a semantics: in short this is the structure that the formula of the logic are expressions of, usually given in set theory, and a valuation of a given F is a function that maps all the non logical symbols in F to sets and members of sets, which a given semantics for the logic composes into a truth value.
Hmm. I'm not sure that's the best explanation, but I don't have much time.
Either way, that should help you understand the difference. To answer your question about the difference between (i) and (ii) without giving too much away, think: what's the relationship between the two? Well given that as above an F' is true given a valuation that sends the sentence to true. So you could "rewrite" my definition of validity as: a conclusion is valid iff whenever the premises are satisfisable the conclusion is satisfisable.
Now, with regards your requirement to prove these things, I strongly suspect you've got a lot more context about your logic you're not telling us and your teacher or text book has intimated a context in which to answer these, as actually taken in the general sense your question doesn't make complete sense.
Related
I'm looking for an approach, pattern, or built-in feature in Prolog that I can use to return why a set of predicates failed, at least as far as the predicates in the database are concerned. I'm trying to be able to say more than "That is false" when a user poses a query in a system.
For example, let's say I have two predicates. blue/1 is true if something is blue, and dog/1 is true if something is a dog:
blue(X) :- ...
dog(X) :- ...
If I pose the following query to Prolog and foo is a dog, but not blue, Prolog would normally just return "false":
? blue(foo), dog(foo)
false.
What I want is to find out why the conjunction of predicates was not true, even if it is an out of band call such as:
? getReasonForFailure(X)
X = not(blue(foo))
I'm OK if the predicates have to be written in a certain way, I'm just looking for any approaches people have used.
The way I've done this to date, with some success, is by writing the predicates in a stylized way and using some helper predicates to find out the reason after the fact. For example:
blue(X) :-
recordFailureReason(not(blue(X))),
isBlue(X).
And then implementing recordFailureReason/1 such that it always remembers the "reason" that happened deepest in the stack. If a query fails, whatever failure happened the deepest is recorded as the "best" reason for failure. That heuristic works surprisingly well for many cases, but does require careful building of the predicates to work well.
Any ideas? I'm willing to look outside of Prolog if there are predicate logic systems designed for this kind of analysis.
As long as you remain within the pure monotonic subset of Prolog, you may consider generalizations as explanations. To take your example, the following generalizations might be thinkable depending on your precise definition of blue/1 and dog/1.
?- blue(foo), * dog(foo).
false.
In this generalization, the entire goal dog(foo) was removed. The prefix * is actually a predicate defined like :- op(950, fy, *). *(_).
Informally, above can be read as: Not only this query fails, but even this generalized query fails. There is no blue foo at all (provided there is none). But maybe there is a blue foo, but no blue dog at all...
?- blue(_X/*foo*/), dog(_X/*foo*/).
false.
Now we have generalized the program by replacing foo with the new variable _X. In this manner the sharing between the two goals is retained.
There are more such generalizations possible like introducing dif/2.
This technique can be both manually and automatically applied. For more, there is a collection of example sessions. Also see Declarative program development in Prolog with GUPU
Some thoughts:
Why did the logic program fail: The answer to "why" is of course "because there is no variable assignment that fulfills the constraints given by the Prolog program".
This is evidently rather unhelpful, but it is exactly the case of the "blue dog": there are no such thing (at least in the problem you model).
In fact the only acceptable answer to the blue dog problem is obtained when the system goes into full theorem-proving mode and outputs:
blue(X) <=> ~dog(X)
or maybe just
dog(X) => ~blue(X)
or maybe just
blue(X) => ~dog(X)
depending on assumptions. "There is no evidence of blue dogs". Which is true, as that's what the program states. So a "why" in this question is a demand to rewrite the program...
There may not be a good answer: "Why is there no x such that x² < 0" is ill-posed and may have as answer "just because" or "because you are restricting yourself to the reals" or "because that 0 in the equation is just wrong" ... so it depends very much.
To make a "why" more helpful, you will have to qualify this "why" somehow. which may be done by structuring the program and extending the query so that additional information collecting during proof tree construction is bubbling up, but you will have to decide beforehand what information that is:
query(Sought, [Info1, Info2, Info3])
And this query will always succeed (for query/2, "success" no longer means "success in finding a solution to the modeled problem" but "success in finishing the computation"),
Variable Sought will be the reified answer of the actual query you want answered, i.e. one of the atoms true or false (and maybe unknown if you have had enough with two-valued logic) and Info1, Info2, Info3 will be additional details to help you answer a why something something in case Sought is false.
Note that much of the time, the desire to ask "why" is down to the mix-up between the two distinct failures: "failure in finding a solution to the modeled problem" and "failure in finishing the computation". For example, you want to apply maplist/3 to two lists and expect this to work but erroneously the two lists are of different length: You will get false - but it will be a false from computation (in this case, due to a bug), not a false from modeling. Being heavy-handed with assertion/1 may help here, but this is ugly in its own way.
In fact, compare with imperative or functional languages w/o logic programming parts: In the event of failure (maybe an exception?), what would be a corresponding "why"? It is unclear.
Addendum
This is a great question but the more I reflect on it, the more I think it can only be answer in a task-specific way: You must structure your logic program to be why-able, and you must decide what kind of information why should actually return. It will be something task-specific: something about missing information, "if only this or that were true" indications, where "this or that" are chosen from a dedicates set of predicates. This is of course expected, as there is no general way to make imperative or functional programs explain their results (or lack thereof) either.
I have looked a bit for papers on this (including IEEE Xplore and ACM Library), and have just found:
Reasoning about Explanations for Negative Query Answers in DL-Lite which is actually for Description Logics and uses abductive reasoning.
WhyNot: Debugging Failed Queries in Large Knowledge Bases which discusses a tool for Cyc.
I also took a random look at the documentation for Flora-2 but they basically seem to say "use the debugger". But debugging is just debugging, not explaining.
There must be more.
I have been reading some notes on converting first order logic (FOL) sentences to conjunctive normal form (CNF), and then performing resolution.
One of the steps of converting to CNF, is Standardize variables.
I have been searching to find an why complete condition of resolution algorithm violate and soundness doesn't violate, if i don't standardize variables.
anyone could add details why just violate completeness, and soundness is remain?
Here is an example that may help you visualize this. Suppose your theory is
(for all X : nice(X)) or (for all X : smart(X)) (1)
which, if you standardize apart, will result in the CNF:
nice(X) or smart(Y)
that is, everybody in a population is nice, or everybody in a population is smart, or both.
Dropping standardize apart will produce a CNF
nice(X) or smart(X)
which is equivalent to
(for all X : nice(X) or smart(X)) (2)
that is, for each individual in a population, that individual is nice, or smart, or both.
This theory (2) is saying less, it is weaker, than the original theory (1), because it admits a situation in which it is not true that everybody is nice, and it is not true that everybody is smart, but it is true that each individual is one or the other or both. In other words, (2) does not imply (1), but (1) implies (2) (if the whole population is nice, then each individual is nice; if the whole population is smart, then each individual is smart; therefore, each individual is either nice or smart). The set of possible worlds accepted by (2) is strictly larger than the set of possible worlds accepted by (1).
What does this say about completeness and soundness?
Using (2) is not complete because I can show you a counter-example of a true theorem in (1) that is not proven true when using (2). Consider the theorem "If John is not nice but smart, then Liz is smart". This is true given (1) because if the whole population shares one of those two qualities, then it must be "smart" since John is not nice, so Liz (and everyone else) must also be smart. However, given (2) this is not true anymore (it could be that Liz is nice but not smart, and everybody else is one or the other, which still would be ok given (2)). So I can no longer prove a true theorem using (2) (after dropping standardize apart), and therefore my inference is not complete.
Now suppose I prove some theorem T to be true, using (2). This means T holds in every possible world in which (2) holds, including the sub-set of them that hold in (1) (according to the third paragraph above from here). Therefore T is true in (1) as well, so performing inference using (2) is still sound.
In a nutshell: when you do not standardize apart, you "join" statements about entire domains (populations) and make them about individuals, which will be weaker and will not imply some facts that were implied before; they will be lost and your procedure will not be complete.
So from what I understand about deterministic predicates:
Deterministic predicate = 1 solution
Non-deterministic predicate = multiple solutions
Are there any type of rules as to how you can detect if the predicate is one or the other? Like looking at the search tree, etc.
There is no clear, generally accepted consensus about these notions. However, they are usually based rather on the observed answers and not based on the number of solutions. In certain contexts the notions are very implementation related. Non-determinate may mean: leaves a choice point open. And sometimes determinate means: never even creates a choice point.
Answers vs. solutions
To see the difference, consider the goal length(L, 1). How many solutions does it have? L = [a] is one, L = [23] another... but all of these solutions are compactly represented with a single answer substitution: L = [_] which thus contains infinitely many solutions.
In any case, in all implementations I know of, length(L, 1) is a determinate goal.
Now consider the goal repeat which has exactly one solution, but infinitely many answers. This goal is considered non-determinate.
In case you are interested in constraints, things become even more evolved. In library(clpfd), the goal X #> Y, Y #> X has no solution, but still one answer. Combine this with repeat: infinitely many answers and no solution.
Further, the goal append(Xs, Ys, []) has exactly one solution and also exactly one answer, nevertheless it is considered non-determinate in many implementations, since in those implementations it leaves a choice point open.
In an ideal implementation, there would be no answers without solutions (except false), and there would be non-determinism only when there is more than one answer. But then, all of this is mostly undecidable in the general case.
So, whenever you are using these notions make sure on what level things are meant. Rather explicitly say: multiple answers, multiple solutions, leaves no (unnecessary) choice point open.
You need understand the difference between det, semidet and undet, it is more than just number of solutions.
Because there is no loop control operator in Prolog, looping (not recursion) is constructed as a 'sequence generating' predicate (undet) followed by the loop body. Also you can store solutions with some of findall-group predicates as a list and loop later with the member/2 predicate.
So, any piece of your program is either part of loop construction or part of usual flow. So, there is a difference in designing det and undet predicates almost in the intended usage. If you can work with a sequence you always do undet and comment it as so. There is a nice unit-test extension in swi-prolog which can check wheter your predicate always the same in mean of det/semidet/undet (semidet is for usage the same way as undet but as a head of 'if' construction).
So, the difference is pre-design, and this question should not be arised with already existing predicates. It is a good practice always comment the intended usage in a comment like.
% member(?El, ?List) is undet.
Deterministic: Always succeeds with a single answer that is always the same for the same input. Think a of a static list of three items, and you tell your function to return value one. You will get the same answer every time. Additionally, arithmetic functions. 1 + 1 = 2. X + Y = Z.
Semi-deterministic: Succeeds with a single answer that is always the same for the same input, but it can fail. Think of a function that takes a list of numbers, and you ask your function if some number exists in the list. It either does, or it doesn't, based on the contents of the list given and the number asked.
Non-deterministic: Succeeds with a single answer, but can exhibit different behaviors on different runs, even for the same input. Think any kind of math.random(min,max) function like random/3
In essence, this is entirely separate from the concept of choice points, as choice points are a function of Prolog. Where I think the Prolog confusion of these terms comes from is that Prolog can find a single answer, then go back and try for another solution, and you have to use the cut operator ! to tell it that you want to discard your choice points explicitly.
This is very useful to know when working with Prolog Unit Testing
Often we would like to refactor a context-free grammar to remove left-recursion. There are numerous algorithms to implement such a transformation; for example here or here.
Such algorithms will restructure a grammar regardless of the presence of left-recursion. This has negative side-effects, such as producing different parse trees from the original grammar, possibly with different associativity. Ideally a grammar would only be transformed if it was absolutely necessary.
Is there an algorithm or tool to identify the presence of left recursion within a grammar? Ideally this might also classify subsets of production rules which contain left recursion.
There is a standard algorithm for identifying nullable non-terminals, which runs in time linear in the size of the grammar (see below). Once you've done that, you can construct the relation A potentially-starts-with B over all non-terminals A, B. (In fact, it's more normal to construct that relationship over all grammatical symbols, since it is also used to construct FIRST sets, but in this case we only need the projection onto non-terminals.)
Having done that, left-recursive non-terminals are all A such that A potentially-starts-with+ A, where potentially-starts-with+ is:
potentially-starts-with ∘ potentially-starts-with*
You can use any transitive closure algorithm to compute that relation.
For reference, to detect nullable non-terminals.
Remove all useless symbols.
Attach a pointer to every production, initially at the first position.
Put all the productions into a workqueue.
While possible, find a production to which one of the following applies:
If the left-hand-side of the production has been marked as an ε-non-terminal, discard the production.
If the token immediately to the right of the pointer is a terminal, discard the production.
If there is no token immediately to the right of the pointer (i.e., the pointer is at the end) mark the left-hand-side of the production as an ε-non-terminal and discard the production.
If the token immediately to the right of the pointer is a non-terminal which has been marked as an ε-non-terminal, advance the pointer one token to the right and return the production to the workqueue.
Once it is no longer possible to select a production from the work queue, all ε-non-terminals have been identified.
Just for fun, a trivial modification of the above algorithm can be used to do step 1. I'll leave it as an exercise (it's also an exercise in the dragon book). Also left as an exercise is the way to make sure the above algorithm executes in linear time.
I'm attempting to express rules more formally than plain English sentences and was hoping for some direction in using a propositional approach and some sort of binary decision tree for illustration of the rules.
Suppose that objects outside a specified zone are required to be in a particular state (say redState) in order to be considered safe. Expressed as a plain English sentences;
if object is outside of ZoneA and is in a RedState, then it is Safe,
However, in some instances objects may be exempt from this restriction:
if object is outside of ZoneA, is not in a RedState and is Exempt, then it is Safe.
if object is outside of ZoneA, is not in a RedState and is not Exempt, then it is not Safe.
Whether or not an object in zone A is in a red state is unimportant. The remaining rule is:
if an object is contained in zone A, then it is safe.
Using a propositional formulation, I thought these rules could be expressed as
¬InZoneA ∧ RedState ⇒ Safe
¬InZoneA ∧ ¬RedState ∧ Exempt ⇒ Safe
¬InZoneA ∧ ¬RedState ∧ ¬Exempt ⇒ ¬Safe
InZoneA ⇒ Safe
I've consulted system specification approaches (such as Z) but am more interested in conveying a concise conceptual idea of the rules and less so in ensuring their functioning within a larger system. I therefore thought to represent them as a type of binary decision tree (diagram). I've read some notes on the subject but am a little unsure as to whether their use is the best approach or if I am butchering them. The representation I arrive at for these rules is presented in the figure, where solid lines indicate True and dashed lines indicate False.
I would greatly appreciate your input as to whether or not this representation is correct or if my approach/thinking is flawed. Many Thanks!
What you have shown is fine, as far as I can tell.
However, there are some other things you might want to consider.
For example, if the Exempt is available at any level, it might want to be evaluated before anything else, it depends on nothing, and nothing depends on it. This would save you time by not having to evaluate any other properties that will not affect the outcome.