Brief Introduction to Logic

Outline
Historical View
Propositional Logic : Syntax
Propositional Logic : Semantics
Satisfiability
Natural Deduction : Proofs.

Historical view
Philosophical Logic
500 BC to 19th Century

Symbolic Logic
Mid to late 19th Century

Mathematical Logic
Late 19th to mid 20th Century

Logic in Computer Science

Philosophical Logic
500 B.C 19th Century
Logic dealt with arguments in the
natural language used by humans.
Example
All men are motal.
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Philosophical Logic
Natural language is very ambiguous.
Eric does not believe that Mary can pass any test.
I only borrowed your car.
Tom hates Jim and he likes Mary.

It led to many paradoxes.

This sentence is a lie. (The Liars Paradox)

The Sophists Paradox

A Sophist is sued for his tuition by the
school that educated him. He argued
that he must win, since, if he loses, the
school didnt educated him well enough,
and doesnt deserve the money. The
school argue that he must loss, since, if
he win, he was educated well enough
therefore should pay for it.

Symbolic Logic
Mid to late 19th Century.
Attempted to formulate logic in terms of
a mathematical language
Rules of inference were modeled after
various laws for manipulating algebraic
expressions.

Mathematical Logic
Late 19th to mid 20th Century
Frege proposed logic as a language for
mathematics in 1879.
With the rigor of this new foundation, Cantor
was able to analyze the notion of infinity in
ways that were previously impossible. (2N is
strictly larger than N)
Russells Paradox
T = { S | S S}

Logic in Computer Science

In computer science, we design and
study systems through the use of formal
languages that can themselves be
interpreted by a formal system.
Boolean circuits
Programming languages
Design Validation and verification
AI, Security. Etc.

Logics in Computer Science

Propositional Logic
First Order Logic
Higher Order Logic
Theory of Construction
Real-time Logic, Temporal Logic
Process Algebras
Linear Logic

Syntax
The symbol of the language.
Propositional symbols: A, B, C,
Prop: set of propositional symbols
Connectives: (and), (or), (not),
(implies), (is equivalent to), (false).
Parenthesis: (, ).

Formulas
Backus-Naur Form
Form := Prop | (Form) | (Form o Form).

Context-Free Grammar
Form Prop,
Form ( Form),
Form (Form o Form)

Formulas (2)
The set of formulas, Form, is defined as
the smallest set of expressions such
that:
1.Prop Form
2.pForm (p)Form
3.p,q Form (p o q) Form

Formulas (3)
Examples:
(A)
((A))
(A (B C))
(A (B C))
Correct expressions of Propositional Logic
are full of unnecessary parenthesis.

Formulas (4)
Abbreviations. Let o=, , . We write
AoBoCo
in the place of
(A o (B o (C o )))
Thus, we write
A B C,
ABC,
in the place of
(A (B C)),
(A (B C))

Formulas (5)
We omit parenthesis whenever we may
restore them through operator precedence:
binds more strictly than , , and , bind
more strictly than , .
Thus, we write:
A
A B

for
for

A B C for

((AB) C),

((A)),
((A ) B)

Semantics
Def) A truth assignment, , is an
elements of 2Prop(I.e., 2Prop).
Two ways to think of truth assignment
1) X Prop
2) : Prop {0,1}

Note : These notions are equivalence.

Philosophers view
|= p means
satisfies p or
is true of p or
p holds at or
is a model of p

Satisfaction Relation
Def 1) |= (2Prop x Form)
|=
|=
|=
|=
|=
|=

A if (A) =1 (or, A )
p if it is not the case |= p.
pq if |= p and |= q
p q if |= p or |= q
p q if |= p implies |= q
p q if |= p iff |= q

Satisfaction Relation
{A,B} |= A B
Iff {A,B} |= A and {A,B} |= B
Iff A {A,B} and B {A,B}

Electrical Engineers view

A mapping of voltages on a wire : Prop
{0,1}
: {0,1} {0,1}
(0) = 1 and (1) = 0

: {0,1}2 {0,1}
(0,0)= (0,1)= (1,0)=0 and (1,1)=1

: {0,1}2 {0,1}
(1,1)= (0,1)= (1,0)=1 and (0,0)=0

Semantics
Def 2)
A() = (A)
(p)() = (p())
(p o q)() = o(p(), q())

Lemma) Let p Form and 2Prop, then

|= p iff p() = 1.

Software Engineers view

Intuition : a formula specifies a set of truth
assignments.
Def 3) Function Models : From 22Prop

models(A) = { |(A) = 1}, A Prop

models(p) = 2Prop models(p)
models(pq) = models(p) models(q)
models(pq) = models(p) models(q)
models(pq) = (2Prop models(p)) models(q)

Theorem
Let p Form and 2Prop, then the
following statements are all true:
1. |= p
2. p() = 1
3. models(p)

Relevance Lemma
Lets use AP(p) to denote the set of all
propositional symbols occurred in p. Let
1, 2 2Prop, pForm.
Lemma) if 1|AP(p) = 2|AP(p) , then
1|= p iff 2 |= p
Corollary) | = p iff |AP(p) |= p

Algorithmic Perspective
Truth Evaluation Problem
Given pForm and 2AP(p),
p ? Does p() = 1 ?

does |=

Eval(p, ):
If p A, return (A).
If p (q), return (Eval(q, ))
If p (q o r), return o(Eval(p), Eval(q))

Eval uses polynomial time and space.

Extension of |=
Let T 2Prop, Form
Def) T |= p if T models(p)
i.e., |= 22Prop X Form

Def) T |= if T models()
models() = p models(p)
I.e., |= 22Prop X 2Form

Extension of |=
|= 2Form x 2Form
Def) 1 |= 2
iff models(1) models(2)
Iff for all 2Prop
if |= 1 then |= 2

Semantic Classification
A formula p is called valid if models(p) =
2Prop. We denote validity of the formula p
by |=p
A formula p is called satisfiable if
models(p) .
A formula is not satisfiable is called
unsatisfiable or contradiction.

Semantic Classification(II)
Lemma
A formula p is valid iff p is unsatifiable
p is satisfiable iff p is not valid

Lemma
p |= q iff |= (p q)

Satisfiability Problem
Given a p, is p satisfiable?
SAT(p)
B:=0
for all 2AP(p)
B = B Eval(p,)

end
return B

NP-Complete

Proofs
Formal Proofs. We introduce a notion of
formal proof of a formula p: Natural
Deduction.
A formal proof of p is a tree whose root
is labeled p and whose children are
assumptions p1, p2, p3, of the rule r
we used to conclude p.

Proofs
Natural Deduction: Rules. For each logical
symbol o=, , , , and each formula p
with outermost connective o, we give:
A set of Introduction rules for o, describing
under which conditions p is true;
A set of Elimination rules for o, describing
what we may infer from the truth of p.

Proofs
Natural Deduction: notations for proofs.
Let p be any formula, and be a set of formulas.
We use the notation

p
abbreviated by |- p, for:
there is a proof of p whose assumptions are
included in .

Proofs
Natural Deduction: assumptions of a proof
p1
p2
p3

r -------------------------------p
are inductively defined as:
all assumptions of proofs of p1, p2, p3, ,
minus all assumptions we crossed.

Proofs
Identity Principle: The simplest proof is:
p
----p
having 1 assumption, p, and conclusion the
same p.
We may express it by: |-p, for all p
We call this proof The Identity Principle (from
p we derive p).

Proofs
Rules for
Introduction rules: none ( is always false).
Elimination rules: from the truth of (a
contradiction) we derive everything:

---p
If |- , then |-p, for all p

Proofs
Rules for
Introduction rules:
p
q
-------pq
If |- p and |- q then |- p q

Proofs
Elimination rules:
pq
-------p

pq
------q

If |- p q, then |- p and |- q

Proofs
Rules for

Introduction rule:
[p]

q
-------pq

If ,p |- q, then |-pq
We may drop any number of assumptions equal to p
from the proof of q.

Proofs
Elimination rule:
pq
----------------

q
If |-pq and |-p, then |- q.

Proofs
The only axiom not associated to a connective, nor
justified by some Introduction rule, is Double
Negation:
[p]
.

--p
If , p|- , then |-p
We may drop any number of assumptions equal to p
from the proof of q.

Soundness
|- p then |= p

Completeness

|= p then |- p