scholarly journals A Generalisation of AGM Contraction and Revision to Fragments of First-Order Logic

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 ◽  
pp. 147-179
Author(s):  
Zhiqiang Zhuang ◽  
Zhe Wang ◽  
Kewen Wang ◽  
James Delgrande
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Description Logics ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Epistemic Entrenchment ◽  
First Order ◽  
General Logic ◽  
Horn Fragment ◽  
Point Of Departure ◽  
Recovery Postulate

AGM contraction and revision assume an underlying logic that contains propositional logic. Consequently, this assumption excludes many useful logics such as the Horn fragment of propositional logic and most description logics. Our goal in this paper is to generalise AGM contraction and revision to (near-)arbitrary fragments of classical first-order logic. To this end, we first define a very general logic that captures these fragments. In so doing, we make the modest assumptions that a logic contains conjunction and that information is expressed by closed formulas or sentences. The resulting logic is called first-order conjunctive logic or FC logic for short. We then take as the point of departure the AGM approach of constructing contraction functions through epistemic entrenchment, that is the entrenchment-based contraction. We redefine entrenchment-based contraction in ways that apply to any FC logic, which we call FC contraction. We prove a representation theorem showing its compliance with all the AGM contraction postulates except for the controversial recovery postulate. We also give methods for constructing revision functions through epistemic entrenchment which we call FC revision; which also apply to any FC logic. We show that if the underlying FC logic contains tautologies then FC revision complies with all the AGM revision postulates. Finally, in the context of FC logic, we provide three methods for generating revision functions via a variant of the Levi Identity, which we call contraction, withdrawal and cut generated revision, and explore the notion of revision equivalence. We show that withdrawal and cut generated revision coincide with FC revision and so does contraction generated revision under a finiteness condition.

scholarly journals Extensions in graph normal form

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Walicki
Keyword(s):  
Normal Form ◽  
Fixed Points ◽  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Special Cases

Abstract Graph normal form, introduced earlier for propositional logic, is shown to be a normal form also for first-order logic. It allows to view syntax of theories as digraphs, while their semantics as kernels of these digraphs. Graphs are particularly well suited for studying circularity, and we provide some general means for verifying that circular or apparently circular extensions are conservative. Traditional syntactic means of ensuring conservativity, like definitional extensions or positive occurrences guaranteeing exsitence of fixed points, emerge as special cases.

Logics for the Semantic Web

2011 ◽  
pp. 24-43
Author(s):  
J. Bruijn
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Web ◽  
Logic Programming ◽  
Description Logic ◽  
Description Logics ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Horn Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Logical Language ◽  
Rule Languages

This chapter introduces a number of formal logical languages which form the backbone of the Semantic Web. They are used for the representation of both ontologies and rules. The basis for all languages presented in this chapter is the classical first-order logic. Description logics is a family of languages which represent subsets of first-order logic. Expressive description logic languages form the basis for popular ontology languages on the Semantic Web. Logic programming is based on a subset of first-order logic, namely Horn logic, but uses a slightly different semantics and can be extended with non-monotonic negation. Many Semantic Web reasoners are based on logic programming principles and rule languages for the Semantic Web based on logic programming are an ongoing discussion. Frame Logic allows object-oriented style (frame-based) modeling in a logical language. RuleML is an XML-based syntax consisting of different sublanguages for the exchange of specifications in different logical languages over the Web.

Lifting propositional proof compression algorithms to first-order logic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Gorzny ◽  
Ezequiel Postan ◽  
Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Empirical Evaluation ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Automated Deduction ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Compression Algorithms ◽  
International Conference ◽  
First Order ◽  
Theorem Provers ◽  
Resolution Proofs

Abstract Proofs are a key feature of modern propositional and first-order theorem provers. Proofs generated by such tools serve as explanations for unsatisfiability of statements. However, these explanations are complicated by proofs which are not necessarily as concise as possible. There are a wide variety of compression techniques for propositional resolution proofs but fewer compression techniques for first-order resolution proofs generated by automated theorem provers. This paper describes an approach to compressing first-order logic proofs based on lifting proof compression ideas used in propositional logic to first-order logic. The first approach lifted from propositional logic delays resolution with unit clauses, which are clauses that have a single literal. The second approach is partial regularization, which removes an inference $\eta $ when it is redundant in the sense that its pivot literal already occurs as the pivot of another inference in every path from $\eta $ to the root of the proof. This paper describes the generalization of the algorithms LowerUnits and RecyclePivotsWithIntersection (Fontaine et al.. Compression of propositional resolution proofs via partial regularization. In Automated Deduction—CADE-23—23rd International Conference on Automated Deduction, Wroclaw, Poland, July 31–August 5, 2011, p. 237--251. Springer, 2011) from propositional logic to first-order logic. The generalized algorithms compresses resolution proofs containing resolution and factoring inferences with unification. An empirical evaluation of these approaches is included.

A First Course in Logic

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Hedman
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Proof Theory ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
University Of Maryland ◽  
First Order ◽  
Science Philosophy ◽  
The University ◽  
Second Order Logic ◽  
Theory And Model

The ability to reason and think in a logical manner forms the basis of learning for most mathematics, computer science, philosophy and logic students. Based on the author's teaching notes at the University of Maryland and aimed at a broad audience, this text covers the fundamental topics in classical logic in an extremely clear, thorough and accurate style that is accessible to all the above. Covering propositional logic, first-order logic, and second-order logic, as well as proof theory, computability theory, and model theory, the text also contains numerous carefully graded exercises and is ideal for a first or refresher course.

Proof theory

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Hedman
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Completeness Theorem ◽  
Formal Proof ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Truth Table ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Formal Proofs ◽  
Systematic Method ◽  
First Order

As with any logic, the semantics of first-order logic yield rules for deducing the truth of one sentence from that of another. In this chapter, we develop both formal proofs and resolution for first-order logic. As in propositional logic, each of these provides a systematic method for proving that one sentence is a consequence of another. Recall the Consequence problem for propositional logic. Given formulas F and G, the problemis to decide whether or not G is a consequence of F. From Chapter 1, we have three approaches to this problem: • We could compute the truth table for the formula F → G. If the truth values are all 1s then we conclude that F → G is a tautology and G is a consequence of F. Otherwise, G is not a consequence of F. • Using Tables 1.5 and 1.6, we could try to formally derive G from {F}. By the Completeness Theorem for propositional logic, G is a consequence of F if and only if {F} ├ G. • We could use resolution. By Theorem1.76, G is a consequence of F if and only if ∅ ∈ Res(H) where H is a formula in CNF equivalent to (F ∧￢G). Using these methods not only can we determine whether one formula is a consequence of another, but also we can determine whether a given formula is a tautology or a contradiction. A formula F is a tautology if and only if F is a consequence of (A∨￢A) if and only if ￢F is a contradiction. In this chapter, we consider the analogous problems for first-order logic. Given formulas φ and ψ, how can we determine whether ψ is a consequence of φ? Equivalently, how can we determine whether a given formula is a tautology or a contradiction? We present three methods for answering these questions. • In Section 3.1, we define a notion of formal proof for first-order logic by extending Table 1.5. • In Section 3.3, we “reduce” formulas of first-order logic to sets of formulas of propositional logic where we use resolution as defined in Chapter 1.

Structures and first-order logic

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Hedman
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Function Symbol ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Ternary Relation ◽  
Specific Element ◽  
First Order ◽  
Lower Case ◽  
Second Order Logic

First-order logic is a richer language than propositional logic. Its lexicon contains not only the symbols ∧, ∨, ￢, →, and ↔ (and parentheses) from propositional logic, but also the symbols ∃ and ∀ for “there exists” and “for all,” along with various symbols to represent variables, constants, functions, and relations. These symbols are grouped into five categories. • Variables. Lower case letters from the end of the alphabet (. . . x, y, z) are used to denote variables. Variables represent arbitrary elements of an underlying set. This, in fact, is what “first-order” refers to. Variables that represent sets of elements are called second-order. Second-order logic, discussed in Chapter 9, is distinguished by the inclusion of such variables. • Constants. Lower case letters from the beginning of the alphabet (a, b, c, . . .) are usually used to denote constants. A constant represents a specific element of an underlying set. • Functions. The lower case letters f, g, and h are commonly used to denote functions. The arguments may be parenthetically listed following the function symbol as f(x1, x2, . . . , xn). First-order logic has symbols for functions of any number of variables. If f is a function of one, two, or three variables, then it is called unary, binary, or ternary, respectively. In general, a function of n variables is called n-ary and n is referred to as the arity of the function. • Relations. Capital letters, especially P, Q, R, and S, are used to denote relations. As with functions, each relation has an associated arity. We have an infinite number of each of these four types of symbols at our disposal. Since there are only finitely many letters, subscripts are used to accomplish this infinitude. For example, x1, x2, x3, . . . are often used to denote variables. Of course, we can use any symbol we want in first-order logic. Ascribing the letters of the alphabet in the above manner is a convenient convention. If you turn to a random page in this book and see “R(a, x, y),” you can safely assume that R is a ternary relation, x and y are variables, and a is a constant.

SKEPTICAL ABDUCTION

1993 ◽  
Vol 02 (04) ◽  
pp. 511-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. MARQUIS
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Real Problem ◽  
Logical Framework ◽  
First Order ◽  
Selective Generation ◽  
The Given ◽  
Reasonable Prospect

Abduction is the process of generating the best explanation as to why a fact is observed given what is already known. A real problem in this area is the selective generation of hypotheses that have some reasonable prospect of being valid. In this paper, we propose the notion of skeptical abduction as a model to face this problem. Intuitively, the hypotheses pointed out by skeptical abduction are all the explanations that are consistent with the given knowledge and that are minimal, i.e. not unnecessarily general. Our contribution is twofold. First, we present a formal characterization of skeptical abduction in a logical framework. On this ground, we address the problem of mechanizing skeptical abduction. A new method to compute minimal and consistent hypotheses in propositional logic is put forward. The extent to which skeptical abduction can be mechanized in first—order logic is also investigated. In particular, two classes of first-order formulas in which skeptical abduction is effective are provided. As an illustration, we finally sketch how our notion of skeptical abduction applies as a theoretical tool to some artificial intelligence problems (e.g. diagnosis, machine learning).

scholarly journals SUBFORMULA AND SEPARATION PROPERTIES IN NATURAL DEDUCTION VIA SMALL KRIPKE MODELS

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER MILNE
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Kripke Models ◽  
Careful Attention ◽  
Classical Propositional Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Invalid Inference ◽  
Subformula Property

Various natural deduction formulations of classical, minimal, intuitionist, and intermediate propositional and first-order logics are presented and investigated with respect to satisfaction of the separation and subformula properties. The technique employed is, for the most part, semantic, based on general versions of the Lindenbaum and Lindenbaum–Henkin constructions. Careful attention is paid (i) to which properties of theories result in the presence of which rules of inference, and (ii) to restrictions on the sets of formulas to which the rules may be employed, restrictions determined by the formulas occurring as premises and conclusion of the invalid inference for which a counterexample is to be constructed. We obtain an elegant formulation of classical propositional logic with the subformula property and a singularly inelegant formulation of classical first-order logic with the subformula property, the latter, unfortunately, not a product of the strategy otherwise used throughout the article. Along the way, we arrive at an optimal strengthening of the subformula results for classical first-order logic obtained as consequences of normalization theorems by Dag Prawitz and Gunnar Stålmarck.

scholarly journals Probabilistic Description Logics for Subjective Uncertainty

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 1-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Gutierrez-Basulto ◽  
Jean Christoph Jung ◽  
Carsten Lutz ◽  
Lutz Schröder
Keyword(s):  
Description Logics ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Two Dimensional ◽  
Subjective Probabilities ◽  
Subjective Uncertainty ◽  
First Order ◽  
New Family ◽  
Probabilistic Description

We propose a family of probabilistic description logics (DLs) that are derived in a principled way from Halpern's probabilistic first-order logic. The resulting probabilistic DLs have a two-dimensional semantics similar to temporal DLs and are well-suited for representing subjective probabilities. We carry out a detailed study of reasoning in the new family of logics, concentrating on probabilistic extensions of the DLs ALC and EL, and showing that the complexity ranges from PTime via ExpTime and 2ExpTime to undecidable.

Properties of first-order logic

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Hedman
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Beth Definability ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Infinite Model

We show that first-order logic, like propositional logic, has both completeness and compactness. We prove a countable version of these theorems in Section 4.1. We further show that these two properties have many useful consequences for first-order logic. For example, compactness implies that if a set of first-order sentences has an infinite model, then it has arbitrarily large infinite models. To fully understand completeness, compactness, and their consequences we must understand the nature of infinite numbers. In Section 4.2, we return to our discussion of infinite numbers that we left in Section 2.5. This digression allows us to properly state and prove completeness and compactness along with the Upward and Downward Löwenhiem–Skolem theorems. These are the four central theorems of first-order logic referred to in the title of Section 4.3. We discuss consequences of these theorems in Sections 4.4–4.6. These consequences include amalgamation theorems, preservation theorems, and the Beth Definability theorem. Each of the properties studied in this chapter restrict the language of first-order logic. First-order logic is, in some sense, weak. There are many concepts that cannot be expressed in this language. For example, whereas first-order logic can express “there exist n elements” for any finite n, it cannot express “there exist countably many elements.” Any sentence having a countable model necessarily has uncountable models. As we previously mentioned, this follows from compactness. In the final section of this chapter, using graphs as an illustration, we discuss the limitations of first-order logic. Ironically, the weakness of first-order logic makes it the fruitful logic that it is. The properties discussed in this chapter, and the limitations that follow from them, make possible the subject of model theory. All formulas in this chapter are first-order unless stated otherwise. Many of the properties of first-order logic, including completeness and compactness, are consequences of the following fact: Every model has a theory and every theory has a model. Recall that a set of sentences is a “theory” if it is consistent (i.e. if we cannot derive a contradiction). “Every theory has a model” means that if a set of sentences is consistent, then it is satisfiable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document