Logic Meaning Logical Reasoning Neil Heffernan Slides from
- Slides: 38
Logic- Meaning & Logical Reasoning Neil Heffernan (Slides from Andrew Moore at CMU) See Chapter 6 of Russell and Norvig
Goal: Make Logical Decesions • Adjancent squares (not diagonal) to wumps are stenchy • Next to pit are breezes • Agents don’t know where they are- they will percive a bump if they try to walk into a wall. • Shoot wumpus with one arrow in straight line • Die if move into room with wumpus • Goal- get in and get out with gold in as few as moves as possible.
Truth Tables P Q ? True True False False
Truth Tables P Q ? True False False True
Truth Tables P Q ? True False True False
Truth Tables P Q P => Q True ? True False ? False True ? True False If P is true that I am claim that Q is true, otherwise I am making no claim
Truth Tables P Q P <=> Q True ? True False ? False True ? False ? True False
Valid Sentences (Tautologies) • A sentence is valid if it is true in all possible worlds • P or not P • true • P v Q is not valid for it is only true is the worlds where wither P or Q is true.
Satisfiable • A sentence is satisfiable only if there is some interpretion that makes it true. • P • True • False is not satisfiable • P and not P is not satisifaible
P T T F F Q T T F F R T F T F
P v Q (Q R) P T T F F Q T T F F R T F T F Pv. Q T T T F F Q R T F F T P v Q (Q R) T F F T T
Draw a venn Diagram representing satisfiable sentences, valid sentences and unstatisfiable sentence.
Answer • Your knowledge base has many sentences about that relates P, Q, R, S and T like – P v Q (S v T) – ~P v S – etc • You want to know if some arbiraty statement like (R Q) v T • You contruct and implication statement like – (Knowledgebase and’ed togheter) => ((R Q) v T) – Premise => conclusion
…. • (an inference proceudre is complete if you can find a proof for any sentence entitled in the knowledge base) • This truth table method of inference is Complete- because it is always possible to enemeurate out all of the 2^n rows for any proof invovling n propositional symbols
How do you show that these inference rules are sound (that they don’t cause you to entail things that are not in your knoweldge base)
Prove that the four rules are sound
Our agent needs to be able to act • Can we ask the knowledge base what action we should take?
No • But we can encode things not to do like • “Don’t go forward if the wumpus is in front of you” • A(1, 1) ^ East(A) ^ W(2, 1) => ~Forward • How many rules do we need for this?
Practice • Is this valid? Prove it or show counter example – P^(Q V R) (P ^ Q) v (P ^ R)
- Logic meaning
- Travis heffernan
- Margaret heffernan borland
- P q logical equivalence
- Kesetaraan logis
- Lesson 2-1 geometry
- Deductive and inductive reasoning ppt
- Logic reasoning
- Logic
- What is logical reasoning
- This restates the argument rather than actually proving it
- Example of deductive reasoning
- Problem solving
- A small child slides down the four frictionless slides
- A hockey puck sliding on smooth ice at 4 m/s
- Deductive reasoning moves you from:
- Inductive v deductive
- Deductive reasoning definition
- Inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning
- Inductive vs deductive geometry
- Inductive reasoning patterns
- Chapter 2 reasoning and proof answer key
- Structural reasoning is “optional” in logic.
- First order logic vs propositional logic
- First order logic vs propositional logic
- Third order logic
- Combinational logic circuit vs sequential
- Tw
- Software development wbs
- Combinational logic sequential logic
- Combinational logic sequential logic 차이
- Combinational logic sequential logic
- Tu quoque fallacy
- Inductive arguments
- Inductive reasoning example
- Dr neil munro
- Neil tang
- Neil dennehy
- Michael collins buzz aldrin and neil armstrong