First-Order Logic: Review

1
 First-order logic
• First-order logic (FOL) models the world in terms of
• Objects, which are things with individual identities
• Properties of objects that distinguish them from other objects
• Relations that hold among sets of objects
• Functions, which are a subset of relations where there is only one “value”
for any given “input”
• Examples:
• Objects: Students, lectures, companies, cars ...
• Relations: Brother-of, bigger-than, outside, part-of, has-color, occurs-after,
owns, visits, precedes, ...
• Properties: blue, oval, even, large, ...
• Functions: father-of, best-friend, second-half, one-more-than ...
2
 User provides
• Constant symbols, which represent individuals in the world
• Mary
•3
• Green
• Function symbols, which map individuals to individuals
• father-of(Mary) = John
• color-of(Sky) = Blue
• Predicate symbols, which map individuals to truth values
• greater(5,3)
• green(Grass)
• color(Grass, Green)
3
 FOL Provides
• Variable symbols
• E.g., x, y, foo
• Connectives
• Same as in PL: not (), and (), or (), implies (), if and only if
(biconditional )
• Quantifiers
• Universal x or (Ax)
• Existential x or (Ex)

4
 Sentences are built from terms and atoms

• A term (denoting a real-world individual) is a constant symbol, a

variable symbol, or an n-place function of n terms.
x and f(x1, ..., xn) are terms, where each xi is a term.
A term with no variables is a ground term
• An atomic sentence (which has value true or false) is an n-place
predicate of n terms
• A complex sentence is formed from atomic sentences connected by the
logical connectives:
P, PQ, PQ, PQ, PQ where P and Q are sentences
• A quantified sentence adds quantifiers  and 
• A well-formed formula (wff) is a sentence containing no “free”
variables. That is, all variables are “bound” by universal or existential
quantifiers.
5
(x)P(x,y) has x bound as a universally quantified variable, but y is free.
Quantifiers
• Universal quantification
• (x)P(x) means that P holds for all values of x in the domain associated
with that variable
• E.g., (x) dolphin(x)  mammal(x)
• Existential quantification
• ( x)P(x) means that P holds for some value of x in the domain associated
with that variable
• E.g., ( x) mammal(x)  lays-eggs(x)
• Permits one to make a statement about some object without naming it

6
 Quantifiers
• Universal quantifiers are often used with “implies” to form “rules”:
(x) student(x)  smart(x) means “All students are smart”
• Universal quantification is rarely used to make blanket statements about
every individual in the world:
(x)student(x)smart(x) means “Everyone in the world is a student and is smart”
• Existential quantifiers are usually used with “and” to specify a list of
properties about an individual:
(x) student(x)  smart(x) means “There is a student who is smart”
• A common mistake is to represent this English sentence as the FOL
sentence:
(x) student(x)  smart(x)
• But what happens when there is a person who is not a student?
7
Quantifier Scope
• Switching the order of universal quantifiers does not change the
meaning:
• (x)(y)P(x,y) ↔ (y)(x) P(x,y)
• Similarly, you can switch the order of existential quantifiers:
• (x)(y)P(x,y) ↔ (y)(x) P(x,y)
• Switching the order of universals and existentials does change
meaning:
• Everyone likes someone: (x)(y) likes(x,y)
• Someone is liked by everyone: (y)(x) likes(x,y)

9
Connections between All and Exists

We can relate sentences involving  and  using De Morgan’s

laws:
(x) P(x) ↔ (x) P(x)
(x) P(x) ↔ (x) P(x)
(x) P(x) ↔  (x) P(x)
(x) P(x) ↔ (x) P(x)

10
Quantified inference rules
• Universal instantiation
• x P(x)  P(A)
• Universal generalization
• P(A)  P(B) …  x P(x)
• Existential instantiation
• x P(x) P(F)  skolem constant F
• Existential generalization
• P(A)  x P(x)

11
Universal instantiation
(a.k.a. universal elimination)
• If (x) P(x) is true, then P(C) is true, where C is any constant in the
domain of x
• Example:
(x) eats(Ziggy, x)  eats(Ziggy, IceCream)
• The variable symbol can be replaced by any ground term, i.e., any
constant symbol or function symbol applied to ground terms only

12
 Existential instantiation
(a.k.a. existential elimination)
• From (x) P(x) infer P(c)
• Example:
• (x) eats(Ziggy, x)  eats(Ziggy, Stuff)
• Note that the variable is replaced by a brand-new constant not
occurring in this or any other sentence in the KB
• Also known as skolemization; constant is a skolem constant
• In other words, we don’t want to accidentally draw other inferences
about it by introducing the constant
• Convenient to use this to reason about the unknown object, rather
than constantly manipulating the existential quantifier
13
Existential generalization
(a.k.a. existential introduction)
• If P(c) is true, then (x) P(x) is inferred.
• Example
eats(Ziggy, IceCream)  (x) eats(Ziggy, x)
• All instances of the given constant symbol are replaced by the new
variable symbol
• Note that the variable symbol cannot already exist anywhere in the
expression

14
 Translating English to FOL

Every gardener likes the sun.

x gardener(x)  likes(x,Sun)
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
x t person(x) time(t)  can-fool(x,t)
You can fool all of the people some of the time.
x t (person(x)  time(t) can-fool(x,t)) Equivalent
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) Equivalent
x (mushroom(x)  purple(x))  poisonous(x)
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))
Clinton is not tall.
tall(Clinton)
X is above Y iff X is on directly on top of Y or there is a pile of one or more other objects directly on 15
top of one another starting with X and ending with Y.
 Example: A simple genealogy KB by FOL
• Build a small genealogy knowledge base using FOL that
• contains facts of immediate family relations (spouses, parents, etc.)
• contains definitions of more complex relations (ancestors, relatives)
• is able to answer queries about relationships between people
• Predicates:
• parent(x, y), child(x, y), father(x, y), daughter(x, y), etc.
• spouse(x, y), husband(x, y), wife(x,y)
• ancestor(x, y), descendant(x, y)
• male(x), female(y)
• relative(x, y)
• Facts:
• husband(Joe, Mary), son(Fred, Joe)
• spouse(John, Nancy), male(John), son(Mark, Nancy)
• father(Jack, Nancy), daughter(Linda, Jack)
• daughter(Liz, Linda)
• etc. 16
• Rules for genealogical relations
• (x,y) parent(x, y) ↔ child (y, x)
(x,y) father(x, y) ↔ parent(x, y)  male(x) (similarly for mother(x, y))
(x,y) daughter(x, y) ↔ child(x, y)  female(x) (similarly for son(x, y))
• (x,y) husband(x, y) ↔ spouse(x, y)  male(x) (similarly for wife(x, y))
(x,y) spouse(x, y) ↔ spouse(y, x) (spouse relation is symmetric)
• (x,y) parent(x, y)  ancestor(x, y)
(x,y)(z) parent(x, z)  ancestor(z, y)  ancestor(x, y)
• (x,y) descendant(x, y) ↔ ancestor(y, x)
• (x,y)(z) ancestor(z, x)  ancestor(z, y)  relative(x, y)
(related by common ancestry)
(x,y) spouse(x, y)  relative(x, y) (related by marriage)
(x,y)(z) relative(z, x)  relative(z, y)  relative(x, y) (transitive)
(x,y) relative(x, y) ↔ relative(y, x) (symmetric)
• Queries
• ancestor(Jack, Fred) /* the answer is yes */
• relative(Liz, Joe) /* the answer is yes */
• relative(Nancy, Matthew)
/* no answer in general, no if under closed world assumption */
• (z) ancestor(z, Fred)  ancestor(z, Liz) 17
 Semantics of FOL
• Domain M: the set of all objects in the world (of interest)
• Interpretation I: includes
• Assign each constant to an object in M
• Define each function of n arguments as a mapping Mn => M
• Define each predicate of n arguments as a mapping Mn => {T, F}
• Therefore, every ground predicate with any instantiation will have a truth
value
• In general there is an infinite number of interpretations because |M| is
infinite
• Define logical connectives: ~, ^, v, =>, <=> as in PL
• Define semantics of (x) and (x)
• (x) P(x) is true iff P(x) is true under all interpretations
• (x) P(x) is true iff P(x) is true under some interpretation

18
• Model: an interpretation of a set of sentences such that every
sentence is True
• A sentence is
• satisfiable if it is true under some interpretation
• valid if it is true under all possible interpretations
• inconsistent if there does not exist any interpretation under which the
sentence is true
• Logical consequence: S |= X if all models of S are also
models of X

19
Axioms, definitions and theorems
•Axioms are facts and rules that attempt to capture all of the
(important) facts and concepts about a domain; axioms can be
used to prove theorems
• Mathematicians don’t want any unnecessary (dependent) axioms –ones
that can be derived from other axioms
• Dependent axioms can make reasoning faster, however
• Choosing a good set of axioms for a domain is a kind of design problem
•A definition of a predicate is of the form “p(X) ↔ …” and can be
decomposed into two parts
• Necessary description: “p(x)  …”
• Sufficient description “p(x)  …”
• Some concepts don’t have complete definitions (e.g., person(x))
20
 More on definitions
• Examples: define father(x, y) by parent(x, y) and male(x)
• parent(x, y) is a necessary (but not sufficient) description of
father(x, y)
• father(x, y)  parent(x, y)
• parent(x, y) ^ male(x) ^ age(x, 35) is a sufficient (but not necessary) description
of father(x, y):
father(x, y)  parent(x, y) ^ male(x) ^ age(x, 35)
• parent(x, y) ^ male(x) is a necessary and sufficient description of father(x, y)
parent(x, y) ^ male(x) ↔ father(x, y)

21
More on definitions

S(x) is a P(x)
necessary (x) P(x) => S(x)
S(x)
condition of P(x)

S(x) is a S(x)
sufficient (x) P(x) <= S(x)
P(x)
condition of P(x)

S(x) is a P(x)
necessary and (x) P(x) <=> S(x)
S(x)
sufficient
condition of P(x)

22
 Higher-order logic
• FOL only allows to quantify over variables, and variables can
only range over objects.
• HOL allows us to quantify over relations
• Example: (quantify over functions)
“two functions are equal iff they produce the same value for all arguments”
f g (f = g)  (x f(x) = g(x))
• Example: (quantify over predicates)
r transitive( r )  (xyz) r(x,y)  r(y,z)  r(x,z))
• More expressive, but undecidable.

23
Expressing uniqueness
• Sometimes we want to say that there is a single,
unique object that satisfies a certain condition
• “There exists a unique x such that king(x) is true”
• x king(x)  y (king(y)  x=y)
• x king(x)  y (king(y)  xy)
• ! x king(x)
• “Every country has exactly one ruler”
• c country(c)  ! r ruler(c,r)
• Iota operator: “ x P(x)” means “the unique x such
that p(x) is true”
• “The unique ruler of Freedonia is dead”
• dead( x ruler(freedonia,x)) 24
Notational differences
• Different symbols for and, or, not, implies, ...
•         
• p v (q ^ r)
• p + (q * r)
• etc
• Prolog
cat(X) :- furry(X), meows (X), has(X, claws)
• Lispy notations
(forall ?x (implies (and (furry ?x)
(meows ?x)
(has ?x claws))
(cat ?x)))
25