Unit-1

INTRODUCTION:- Intelligence, as exhibited by people anyway, is surely one of the most

complex and mysterious phenomena that we are aware of.
Aspect of intelligent behavior is that it is clearly conditioned by knowledge:
1. for a very wide range of activities,
2. we make decisions about
(what to do based on what we know about the world),
3. Effortlessly and unconsciously.

Definition of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

“it is the study of intelligent behavior achieved through computational means. Knowledge
representation and reasoning, then, is that part of AI that is concerned with how an agent uses
what it knows in deciding what to do. It is the study of thinking as a computational process.”

Symbolic structures it has invented --- for representing knowledge and to the computational
processes it has devised for reasoning with those symbolic structures.

KNOWLEDGE, REPRESENTATION, AND REASONING

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is understanding gained through learning or experience.

So we might say, “Ram knows that Shiva will come to the party,” or “Shiva knows that Abraham
Lincoln was assassinated.” This suggests that, among other things, knowledge is a relation
between a knower, like Ram , a proposition,
that is, the idea expressed by a simple declarative sentence,
like “Shiva will come to the party.”
Part of the mystery surrounding knowledge is due to the nature of propositions.
What can we say about them?
As far as we are concerned, what matters about propositions is that they are abstract
entities that can be ---- true or false,
right or wrong
1 When we say, “Ram knows that p,”
We can just as well say, “Ram knows that it is true that p.”
Either way, to say that Ram knows something is to say that Ram has formed a judgment
of some sort, and has come to realize that the world is one way and not another. In talking about
this judgment, we use propositions to classify the two cases.

A similar story can be told about a sentence like “Ram hopes that Shiva will come to the party.”
The same proposition is involved, but the relationship Ram has to it is different.
Verbs like “knows,” “hopes,” “regrets,” “fears,” and “doubts” all denote
propositional attitudes, relationships between agents and propositions.

In all cases, what matters about the proposition is its truth: If Ram hopes that Shiva will come to
the party, then Ram is hoping that the world is one way and not another, as classified by the
proposition. Of course, there are sentences involving knowledge that do not explicitly mention.
Representation
The concept of representation is as philosophically vexing as that of knowledge. Very roughly
speaking, representation is a relationship between two domains,
 where the first domain, the representor, is more concrete, immediate, or accessible in
some way than the second.
For example, a drawing of a milkshake and a burger on a sign might stand for visible fast food
restaurant; the drawing of a circle with a plus below it might stand for the much more abstract
concept at restaurant.

what the symbols represent. In some cases, a word like “John” might stand for something quite
concrete; but many words, like “love” or “truth,” stand for abstractions.

Knowledge representation, is the field of study concerned with using formal symbols to
represent a collection of propositions believed by some putative agent. As we will see, however,
we do not want to insist that these symbols must represent all the propositions believed by the
agent. There may very well be an infinite number of propositions believed, only a finite number
of which are ever represented. It will be the role of reasoning to bridge the gap between what is
represented and what is believed.

Reasoning:-
It is here that we use the fact that symbols are more accessible than the propositions they
represent:

It is useful here to draw an analogy with arithmetic. We can think of binary addition as being a
certain formal manipulation: We start with symbols like “1011” and “10,” for instance, and end
up with “1101.” The manipulation in this case is addition, because the final symbol represents
the sum of the numbers represented by the initial ones. Reasoning is similar: We might start
with the sentences “Ram loves Shiva” and “Shiva is coming to the party,” and after a certain
amount of manipulation produce the sentence, “Someone Ram loves is coming to the party.”
We would call this form of reasoning logical inference because the final sentence represents a
logical conclusion of the propositions represented by the initial ones, as we will discuss later.
According to this view (first put forward, incidentally, by the philosopher Gottfried
Leibniz in the seventeenth century), reasoning is a form of calculation, not unlike arithmetic,
but over symbols standing for propositions rather than numbers.

First order logic

What is a logic? A logic is a formal language for representing facts and properties of a
world in a precise, unambiguous way.

 Sentences in the language are constructed according to formal rules and relationships.
 A semantics identifies the formal meaning of any sentence.
 An inference method allows new sentences to be generated from existing sentences.

Propositional logic

The simplest logic of all.

Allows facts about the world to be represented as sentences formed from:

 propositional symbols: P, Q, R, S...

 And:
 Or:
 Not:
  Implies:
 Therefore:
 wrapping parentheses: (...)
 logical constants: true, false, unknown

Propositional logic examples

 `It is humid': Q
 `If it is humid, then it is hot': Q P
 `If it is hot and humid, then it is raining': (P Q) R

Truth tables

The meaning of logical relationships is defined using truth tables.

A truth table shows how truth values combine under the relevant relationship.

Basic rules of inference

The two main rules of inference are

 Modus ponens

P Q
P
Q

 Modus Tolens

P Q
Q
P

Soundness and completeness

In logic, sentences have a value.

This is normally a truth value, i.e., true or false.

The associated inference method is then said to be

 sound if it does not generate false facts (i.e., contradictions), and

  complete if it is able to produce every sentence that is logically entailed by any
existing set of sentences.

Semantics

A semantics maps sentences to facts in the world; e.g., the mapping determines which
objects in the world are referenced by which objects in the language. This is called
a referential semantics.

The way one fact follows another should be mirrored by the way one sentence
is entailed by another.

Problems with propositional logic

In Propositional logic, we have no way to represent properties of objects.

We cannot represent property-based generalisations.

For example, it is impossible to represent this categorical syllogism in Propositional

logic:

Every person is mortal

Tony Blair is a person
Therefore Tony Blair is mortal

First-order logic

First-order logic (FOL) (also known as first-order predicate calculus or FOPC) adds

 predicates which can represent properties, e.g., mortal(person), or relationships,

e.g., likes(fred, sausages),
 existentially quantified variables, e.g., at least one X such that...
 universallly quantified variables, e.g., X it is the case that...

Using predicates to represent relationships

In order to represent a relationship between individual objects, we can use a predicate
specifying the objects as its arguments.

 `Alison likes Richard and chocolate'

 likes(alison, richard) likes(alison, chocolate)

Using predicates within a rule

 `If Richard is a friend of Alison then Alison likes Richard'

 friends(alison, richard) likes(alison, richard)

Using variables with predicates to capture generalisations

We can capture generalisations by asserting that any instance of a given class has the
relevant property. For example

 `Every elephant is grey'

 X: elephant(X) grey(X)

Using quantifiers and variables

We can use quantification to distinguish general and specific assertion.

 `There is a white aligator': X: alligator(X) white(X)

 `Alison eats everything that she likes': X: likes(alison, X) eats(alison, X)
 `There exists some bird that doesn't fly': X: bird(X) flies(X).
 `Every person has something that they love': X: person(X) Y: loves(X,Y)

More examples

Usually, there are several ways to render a sentence in FOL. There's no `one right
answer'.

Consider these

 `Every gardener likes the sun.' x: gardener(x) likes(x,Sun)

 `You can fool some of the people all of the time.' x: (person(x) t: (time(t) =>
can-fool(x,t)))
 `You can fool all of the people some of the time.' x: (person(x) t: (time(t)
can-fool(x,t)))
 `All purple mushrooms are poisonous.' x: (mushroom(x) purple(x))
poisonous(x)
 `No purple mushroom is poisonous.' x: purple(x) mushroom(x)
poisonous(x) or, equivalently, x: (mushroom(x) purple(x))
poisonous(x)

Examples cont.

 `There are exactly two purple mushrooms.' x y: mushroom(x) purple(x)

mushroom(y) purple(y) (x=y) z: (mushroom(z) purple(z))
( (x=z) (y=z) )
 `Deb is not tall.' tall(Deb)
  `X is above Y if X is on top of Y or else there is a pile of one or more other objects
directly on top of one another starting with X and ending with Y.' x y:
above(x,y) (on(x,y) z (on(x,z) above(z,y)))

Problems with FOL

FOL is a powerful language for representing knowledge.

But its expressiveness complicates the derivation of inferences. (It gets easier if we
exliminate existential quantification and assume `negation by failure'.)

Also, in FOL you cannot construct sentences which make assertions about other
sentences. For example, you cannot say things like `there exists a property such that...'

For this task, you need a higher-order logic.

Special-purpose logics

Other flavours of logic offer different forms of sentence valuation.

For example

 fuzzy logic: evaluation in terms of probability;

 modal logic: evaluation in terms of a propositional attitude such as belief. Good
for sentences containing `should', `must' etc.
 temporal logic: evaluation in terms of truth at a particular moment in time.

The Frame problem

A fundamental difficulty for sentential representation is the frame problem.

This affects all varieties of knowledge representation but is particularly apparent where
evaluation is in terms of truth, and rules are used to define the results of actions.

Frame problem example

Suppose we have

paint(X, C) color(X, C)
move(X, P) position(X, P)

and it is known that

paint(tony, blue).
move(tony, garden).

We should then be able to infer that

colour(tony, blue) position(tony, garden)

But the inference is, in fact, logically unsound

There is the possibility that the colour of tony gets changed by the move action.

Nothing in what we know rules this out.

Addressing the frame problem

The most obvious way to protect against the frame problem is to add rules which capture
the non-effects of actions.

Such rules are known as frame axioms.

For example

move(X, P) color-before-move(X, C) color(X, C).

asserts the fact that moving an object will not affect its colour.

However, this is not satisfactory.

Since most actions do not affect most properties of a situation, in a domain comprising
actions and properties, we are going to need approximately frame axioms.