First-Order Logic in Artificial intelligence

In the topic of Propositional logic, we have seen that how to represent statements using
propositional logic. But unfortunately, in propositional logic, we can only represent the facts,
which are either true or false. PL is not sufficient to represent the complex sentences or
natural language statements. The propositional logic has very limited expressive power.
Consider the following sentence, which we cannot represent using PL logic.

o "Some humans are intelligent", or

o "Sachin likes cricket."
To represent the above statements, PL logic is not sufficient, so we required some more
powerful logic, such as first-order logic.

First-Order logic:
o First-order logic is another way of knowledge representation in artificial
intelligence. It is an extension to propositional logic.
o FOL is sufficiently expressive to represent the natural language statements in a
concise way.
o First-order logic is also known as Predicate logic or First-order predicate
logic. First-order logic is a powerful language that develops information about
the objects in a more easy way and can also express the relationship between
those objects.
o First-order logic (like natural language) does not only assume that the world
contains facts like propositional logic but also assumes the following things in the
world:
o Objects: A, B, people, numbers, colors, wars, theories, squares, pits,
wumpus, ......
o Relations: It can be unary relation such as: red, round, is adjacent, or
n-any relation such as: the sister of, brother of, has color, comes
between
o Function: Father of, best friend, third inning of, end of, ......
o As a natural language, first-order logic also has two main parts:

o Syntax
o Semantics

Syntax of First-Order logic:

The syntax of FOL determines which collection of symbols is a logical expression in first-
order logic. The basic syntactic elements of first-order logic are symbols. We write
statements in short-hand notation in FOL.
Basic Elements of First-order logic:
Following are the basic elements of FOL syntax:

Constant 1, 2, A, John, Mumbai, cat,....

Variables x, y, z, a, b,....

Predicates Brother, Father, >,....

Function sqrt, LeftLegOf, ....

Connectives ∧, ∨, ¬, ⇒, ⇔

Equality ==

Quantifier ∀, ∃

Atomic sentences:
o Atomic sentences are the most basic sentences of first-order logic. These
sentences are formed from a predicate symbol followed by a parenthesis with a
sequence of terms.
o We can represent atomic sentences as Predicate (term1, term2, ......, term n).
Example: Ravi and Ajay are brothers: =>Brothers(Ravi, Ajay).
Chinky is a cat: => cat (Chinky).

Complex Sentences:
o Complex sentences are made by combining atomic sentences using
connectives.
First-order logic statements can be divided into two parts:

o Subject: Subject is the main part of the statement.

o Predicate: A predicate can be defined as a relation, which binds two atoms
together in a statement.
Consider the statement: "x is an integer.", it consists of two parts, the first part x is the
subject of the statement and second part "is an integer," is known as a predicate.

Quantifiers in First-order logic:

o A quantifier is a language element which generates quantification, and
quantification specifies the quantity of specimen in the universe of discourse.
o These are the symbols that permit to determine or identify the range and scope
of the variable in the logical expression. There are two types of quantifier:

o Universal Quantifier, (for all, everyone, everything)

o Existential quantifier, (for some, at least one).

Universal Quantifier:
Universal quantifier is a symbol of logical representation, which specifies that the statement
within its range is true for everything or every instance of a particular thing.

The Universal quantifier is represented by a symbol ∀, which resembles an inverted A.

Note: In universal quantifier we use implication "→".

If x is a variable, then ∀x is read as:

o For all x
o For each x
o For every x.

Example:
All man drink coffee.

Let a variable x which refers to a cat so all x can be represented in UOD as below:
∀x man(x) → drink (x, coffee).

It will be read as: There are all x where x is a man who drink coffee.

Existential Quantifier:
Existential quantifiers are the type of quantifiers, which express that the statement within its
scope is true for at least one instance of something.

It is denoted by the logical operator ∃, which resembles as inverted E. When it is used with
a predicate variable then it is called as an existential quantifier.

symbol (∧).
Note: In Existential quantifier we always use AND or Conjunction

If x is a variable, then existential quantifier will be ∃x or ∃(x). And it will be read as:

o There exists a 'x.'

o For some 'x.'
o For at least one 'x.'

Example:
Some boys are intelligent.
∃x: boys(x) ∧ intelligent(x)

It will be read as: There are some x where x is a boy who is intelligent.

Points to remember:
The main connective for universal quantifier ∀ is implication →.
The main connective for existential quantifier ∃ is and ∧.
o
o

Properties of Quantifiers:
In universal quantifier, ∀x∀y is similar to ∀y∀x.
In Existential quantifier, ∃x∃y is similar to ∃y∃x.
o

∃x∀y is not similar to ∀y∃x.

o
o
Some Examples of FOL using quantifier:

1. All birds fly.

In this question the predicate is "fly(bird)."

∀x bird(x) →fly(x).
And since there are all birds who fly so it will be represented as follows.

2. Every man respects his parent.

Since there is every man so will use ∀, and it will be represented as follows:
In this question, the predicate is "respect(x, y)," where x=man, and y= parent.

∀x man(x) → respects (x, parent).

3. Some boys play cricket.

use ∃,
In this question, the predicate is "play(x, y)," where x= boys, and y= game. Since there are

∃x boys(x) → play(x, cricket).

some boys so we will and it will be represented as:

4. Not all students like both Mathematics and Science.

Since there are not all students, so we will use ∀ with negation, so following
In this question, the predicate is "like(x, y)," where x= student, and y= subject.

¬∀ (x) [ student(x) → like(x, Mathematics) ∧ like(x, Science)].

representation for this:

5. Only one student failed in Mathematics.

In this question, the predicate is "failed(x, y)," where x= student, and y= subject.
Since there is only one student who failed in Mathematics, so we will use following

∃(x) [ student(x) → failed (x, Mathematics) ∧∀ (y) [¬(x==y) ∧ student(y) →

representation for this:

¬failed (x, Mathematics)].

Free and Bound Variables:

The quantifiers interact with variables which appear in a suitable way. There are two types
of variables in First-order logic which are given below:

Free Variable: A variable is said to be a free variable in a formula if it occurs outside the
scope of the quantifier.

Example: ∀x ∃(y)[P (x, y, z)], where z is a free variable.

Bound Variable: A variable is said to be a bound variable in a formula if it occurs within the
scope of the quantifier.

Example: ∀x [A (x) B( y)], here x and y are the bound variables.

Inference in First-Order Logic

Inference in First-Order Logic is used to deduce new facts or sentences from existing
sentences. Before understanding the FOL inference rule, let's understand some basic
terminologies used in FOL.

Substitution:

Substitution is a fundamental operation performed on terms and formulas. It occurs in all

inference systems in first-order logic. The substitution is complex in the presence of
quantifiers in FOL. If we write F[a/x], so it refers to substitute a constant "a" in place of
variable "x".
Note: First-order logic is capable of expressing facts about some or all
objects in the universe.
Equality:

First-Order logic does not only use predicate and terms for making atomic sentences but
also uses another way, which is equality in FOL. For this, we can use equality
symbols which specify that the two terms refer to the same object.

Example: Brother (John) = Smith.

As in the above example, the object referred by the Brother (John) is similar to the object
referred by Smith. The equality symbol can also be used with negation to represent that
two terms are not the same objects.

Example: ￢(x=y) which is equivalent to x ≠y.

FOL inference rules for quantifier:

As propositional logic we also have inference rules in first-order logic, so following are some
basic inference rules in FOL:

o Universal Generalization
o Universal Instantiation
o Existential Instantiation
o Existential introduction
1. Universal Generalization:

o Universal generalization is a valid inference rule which states that if premise P(c)

a conclusion as ∀ x P(x).
is true for any arbitrary element c in the universe of discourse, then we can have

o It can be represented as: .

o This rule can be used if we want to show that every element has a similar
property.
o In this rule, x must not appear as a free variable.
Example: Let's represent, P(c): "A byte contains 8 bits", so for ∀ x P(x) "All bytes
contain 8 bits.", it will also be true.

2. Universal Instantiation:

o Universal instantiation is also called as universal elimination or UI is a valid

inference rule. It can be applied multiple times to add new sentences.
o The new KB is logically equivalent to the previous KB.
 o As per UI, we can infer any sentence obtained by substituting a ground
term for the variable.

term c (a constant within domain x) from ∀ x P(x) for any object in the
o The UI rule state that we can infer any sentence P(c) by substituting a ground

universe of discourse.

o It can be represented as: .

Example:1.

IF "Every person like ice-cream"=>∀x P(x) so we can infer that

"John likes ice-cream" => P(c)

Example: 2.

Let's take a famous example,

"All kings who are greedy are Evil." So let our knowledge base contains this detail as in the
form of FOL:

∀x king(x) ∧ greedy (x) → Evil (x),

So from this information, we can infer any of the following statements using Universal
Instantiation:

King(John) ∧ Greedy (John) → Evil (John),

King(Richard) ∧ Greedy (Richard) → Evil (Richard),
o

King(Father(John)) ∧ Greedy (Father(John)) → Evil (Father(John)),

o
o
3. Existential Instantiation:

o Existential instantiation is also called as Existential Elimination, which is a valid

inference rule in first-order logic.
o It can be applied only once to replace the existential sentence.
o The new KB is not logically equivalent to old KB, but it will be satisfiable if old KB

This rule states that one can infer P(c) from the formula given in the form of ∃x
was satisfiable.
o
P(x) for a new constant symbol c.
o The restriction with this rule is that c used in the rule must be a new term for
which P(c ) is true.

o It can be represented as:

Example:

From the given sentence: ∃x Crown(x) ∧OnHead(x, John),

 So we can infer: Crown(K) ∧OnHead( K, John), as long as K does not appear in the
knowledge base.

o The above used K is a constant symbol, which is called Skolem constant.

o The Existential instantiation is a special case of Skolemization process.
4. Existential introduction

o An existential introduction is also known as an existential generalization, which is

a valid inference rule in first-order logic.
o This rule states that if there is some element c in the universe of discourse which
has a property P, then we can infer that there exists something in the universe
which has the property P.

o It can be represented as:

o Example: Let's say that,
"Priyanka got good marks in English."
"Therefore, someone got good marks in English."

Generalized Modus Ponens Rule:

For the inference process in FOL, we have a single inference rule which is called
Generalized Modus Ponens. It is lifted version of Modus ponens.

Generalized Modus Ponens can be summarized as, " P implies Q and P is asserted to be
true, therefore Q must be True."

According to Modus Ponens, for atomic sentences pi, pi', q. Where there is a substitution θ
such that SUBST (θ, pi',) = SUBST(θ, pi), it can be represented as:

Example:

We will use this rule for Kings are evil, so we will find some x such that x is king, and
x is greedy so we can infer that x is evil.

1. Here let say, p1' is king(John) p1 is king(x)

2. p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)
3. θ is {x/John, y/John} q is evil(x)
4. SUBST(θ,q).
Forward Chaining and backward chaining in AI
In artificial intelligence, forward and backward chaining is one of the important topics, but
before understanding forward and backward chaining lets first understand that from where
these two terms came.

Inference engine:
The inference engine is the component of the intelligent system in artificial intelligence,
which applies logical rules to the knowledge base to infer new information from known facts.
The first inference engine was part of the expert system. Inference engine commonly
proceeds in two modes, which are:

1. Forward chaining
2. Backward chaining

Horn Clause and Definite clause:

Horn clause and definite clause are the forms of sentences, which enables knowledge base
to use a more restricted and efficient inference algorithm. Logical inference algorithms use
forward and backward chaining approaches, which require KB in the form of the first-order
definite clause.

Definite clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with exactly one positive
literal is known as a definite clause or strict horn clause.

Horn clause: A clause which is a disjunction of literals with at most one positive literal is
known as horn clause. Hence all the definite clauses are horn clauses.

Example: (¬ p V ¬ q V k). It has only one positive literal k.

It is equivalent to p ∧ q → k.

A. Forward Chaining
Forward chaining is also known as a forward deduction or forward reasoning method when
using an inference engine. Forward chaining is a form of reasoning which start with atomic
sentences in the knowledge base and applies inference rules (Modus Ponens) in the
forward direction to extract more data until a goal is reached.

The Forward-chaining algorithm starts from known facts, triggers all rules whose premises
are satisfied, and add their conclusion to the known facts. This process repeats until the
problem is solved.

Properties of Forward-Chaining:
 o It is a down-up approach, as it moves from bottom to top.
o It is a process of making a conclusion based on known facts or data, by starting
from the initial state and reaches the goal state.
o Forward-chaining approach is also called as data-driven as we reach to the goal
using available data.
o Forward -chaining approach is commonly used in the expert system, such as
CLIPS, business, and production rule systems.
Consider the following famous example which we will use in both approaches:

Example:
"As per the law, it is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations.
Country A, an enemy of America, has some missiles, and all the missiles were sold to
it by Robert, who is an American citizen."

Prove that "Robert is criminal."

To solve the above problem, first, we will convert all the above facts into first-order definite
clauses, and then we will use a forward-chaining algorithm to reach the goal.

Facts Conversion into FOL:

o It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. (Let's say p, q,

American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) → Criminal(p)

and r are variables)
...

Country A has some missiles. ?p Owns(A, p) ∧ Missile(p). It can be written in

(1)
o
two definite clauses by using Existential Instantiation, introducing new Constant
T1.
Owns(A, T1) ......(2)
Missile(T1) .......(3)

?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A)

o All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.
......(4)
o Missiles are weapons.
Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)
o Enemy of America is known as hostile.
Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)
o Country A is an enemy of America.
Enemy (A, America) .........(7)
o Robert is American
American(Robert). ..........(8)

Forward chaining proof:

Step-1:

In the first step we will start with the known facts and will choose the sentences which do
not have implications, such as: American(Robert), Enemy(A, America), Owns(A, T1),
and Missile(T1). All these facts will be represented as below.

Step-2:

At the second step, we will see those facts which infer from available facts and with satisfied
premises.

Rule-(1) does not satisfy premises, so it will not be added in the first iteration.

Rule-(2) and (3) are already added.

Rule-(4) satisfy with the substitution {p/T1}, so Sells (Robert, T1, A) is added, which infers
from the conjunction of Rule (2) and (3).

Rule-(6) is satisfied with the substitution(p/A), so Hostile(A) is added and which infers from
Rule-(7).

Step-3:

At step-3, as we can check Rule-(1) is satisfied with the substitution {p/Robert, q/T1, r/A},
so we can add Criminal(Robert) which infers all the available facts. And hence we
reached our goal statement.
Hence it is proved that Robert is Criminal using forward chaining approach.

B. Backward Chaining:
Backward-chaining is also known as a backward deduction or backward reasoning method
when using an inference engine. A backward chaining algorithm is a form of reasoning,
which starts with the goal and works backward, chaining through rules to find known facts
that support the goal.

Properties of backward chaining:

o It is known as a top-down approach.

o Backward-chaining is based on modus ponens inference rule.
o In backward chaining, the goal is broken into sub-goal or sub-goals to prove the
facts true.
o It is called a goal-driven approach, as a list of goals decides which rules are
selected and used.
o Backward -chaining algorithm is used in game theory, automated theorem
proving tools, inference engines, proof assistants, and various AI applications.
o The backward-chaining method mostly used a depth-first search strategy for
proof.

Example:
In backward-chaining, we will use the same above example, and will rewrite all the rules.

o American (p) ∧ weapon(q) ∧ sells (p, q, r) ∧ hostile(r) → Criminal(p) ...(1)

Owns(A, T1) ........(2)
o Missile(T1)
 o ?p Missiles(p) ∧ Owns (A, p) → Sells (Robert, p, A) ......(4)
o Missile(p) → Weapons (p) .......(5)
o Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ........(6)
o Enemy (A, America) .........(7)
o American(Robert). ..........(8)

Backward-Chaining proof:
In Backward chaining, we will start with our goal predicate, which is Criminal(Robert), and
then infer further rules.

Step-1:

At the first step, we will take the goal fact. And from the goal fact, we will infer other facts,
and at last, we will prove those facts true. So our goal fact is "Robert is Criminal," so
following is the predicate of it.

Step-2:

At the second step, we will infer other facts form goal fact which satisfies the rules. So as
we can see in Rule-1, the goal predicate Criminal (Robert) is present with substitution
{Robert/P}. So we will add all the conjunctive facts below the first level and will replace p
with Robert.

Here we can see American (Robert) is a fact, so it is proved here.

Step-3:t At step-3, we will extract further fact Missile(q) which infer from Weapon(q), as it
satisfies Rule-(5). Weapon (q) is also true with the substitution of a constant T1 at q.
Step-4:

At step-4, we can infer facts Missile(T1) and Owns(A, T1) form Sells(Robert, T1, r) which
satisfies the Rule- 4, with the substitution of A in place of r. So these two statements are
proved here.
Step-5:

At step-5, we can infer the fact Enemy(A, America) from Hostile(A) which satisfies Rule-
6. And hence all the statements are proved true using backward chaining.

Resolution in FOL
Resolution
Resolution is a theorem proving technique that proceeds by building refutation proofs, i.e.,
proofs by contradictions. It was invented by a Mathematician John Alan Robinson in the
year 1965.

Resolution is used, if there are various statements are given, and we need to prove a
conclusion of those statements. Unification is a key concept in proofs by resolutions.
Resolution is a single inference rule which can efficiently operate on the conjunctive
normal form or clausal form.

Clause: Disjunction of literals (an atomic sentence) is called a clause. It is also known as a
unit clause.

Conjunctive Normal Form: A sentence represented as a conjunction of clauses is said to

be conjunctive normal form or CNF.
Note: To better understand this topic, firstly learns the FOL in AI.

The resolution inference rule:

The resolution rule for first-order logic is simply a lifted version of the propositional rule.
Resolution can resolve two clauses if they contain complementary literals, which are
assumed to be standardized apart so that they share no variables.

Where li and mj are complementary literals.

This rule is also called the binary resolution rule because it only resolves exactly two
literals.

Example:
We can resolve two clauses which are given below:

[Animal (g(x) V Loves (f(x), x)] and [￢Loves(a, b) V ￢Kills(a, b)]

Where two complimentary literals are: Loves (f(x), x) and ￢ Loves (a, b)

These literals can be unified with unifier θ= [a/f(x), and b/x] , and it will generate a resolvent
clause:

[Animal (g(x) V ￢Kills(f(x), x)].

Steps for Resolution:

1. Conversion of facts into first-order logic.
2. Convert FOL statements into CNF
3. Negate the statement which needs to prove (proof by contradiction)
4. Draw resolution graph (unification).

To better understand all the above steps, we will take an example in which we will apply
resolution.

Example:
1. John likes all kind of food.
2. Apple and vegetable are food
3. Anything anyone eats and not killed is food.
4. Anil eats peanuts and still alive
 5. Harry eats everything that Anil eats.
Prove by resolution that:
6. John likes peanuts.

Step-1: Conversion of Facts into FOL

In the first step we will convert all the given statements into its first order logic.

Step-2: Conversion of FOL into CNF

In First order logic resolution, it is required to convert the FOL into CNF as CNF form makes
easier for resolution proofs.

o Eliminate all implication (→) and rewrite

o ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

∀x ∀y ¬ [eats(x, y) Λ ¬ killed(x)] V food(y)

o food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
o

∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
o eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

∀x¬ [¬ killed(x) ] V alive(x)

o

∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
o
o
o likes(John, Peanuts).
o Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite

o ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)

o food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
o

∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
o eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
o
 o ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
o ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
o likes(John, Peanuts).
o Rename variables or standardize variables

o ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)

∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)

o food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
o

∀w¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)

o eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)

∀g ¬killed(g) ] V alive(g)
o

∀k ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
o
o
o likes(John, Peanuts).

In this step, we will eliminate existential quantifier ∃, and this process is known
o Eliminate existential instantiation quantifier by elimination.

as Skolemization. But in this example problem since there is no existential

quantifier so all the statements will remain same in this step.
o Drop Universal quantifiers.
In this step we will drop all universal quantifier since all the statements are not
implicitly quantified so we don't need it.

o ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
o food(Apple)
o food(vegetables)
o ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
o eats (Anil, Peanuts)
o alive(Anil)
o ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
o killed(g) V alive(g)
o ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
o likes(John, Peanuts).

Note: Statements "food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)" and "eats (Anil,

Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)" can be written in two separate statements.

o Distribute conjunction ∧ over disjunction ¬.

This step will not make any change in this problem.
Step-3: Negate the statement to be proved

In this statement, we will apply negation to the conclusion statements, which will be written
as ¬likes(John, Peanuts)
Step-4: Draw Resolution graph:

Now in this step, we will solve the problem by resolution tree using substitution. For the
above problem, it will be given as follows:

Hence the negation of the conclusion has been proved as a complete contradiction with the
given set of statements.

Explanation of Resolution graph:

o In the first step of resolution graph, ¬likes(John, Peanuts) , and likes(John,
x) get resolved(canceled) by substitution of {Peanuts/x}, and we are left with ¬
food(Peanuts)
o In the second step of the resolution graph, ¬ food(Peanuts) , and food(z) get
resolved (canceled) by substitution of { Peanuts/z}, and we are left with ¬ eats(y,
Peanuts) V killed(y) .
o In the third step of the resolution graph, ¬ eats(y, Peanuts) and eats (Anil,
Peanuts) get resolved by substitution {Anil/y}, and we are left with Killed(Anil) .
o In the fourth step of the resolution graph, Killed(Anil) and ¬ killed(k) get resolve
by substitution {Anil/k}, and we are left with ¬ alive(Anil) .
o In the last step of the resolution graph ¬ alive(Anil) and alive(Anil) get resolved.

Knowledge Engineering in First-order logic

What is knowledge-engineering?
The process of constructing a knowledge-base in first-order logic is called as knowledge-
engineering. In knowledge-engineering, someone who investigates a particular domain,
learns important concept of that domain, and generates a formal representation of the
objects, is known as knowledge engineer.

In this topic, we will understand the Knowledge engineering process in an electronic circuit
domain, which is already familiar. This approach is mainly suitable for creating special-
purpose knowledge base.

The knowledge-engineering process:

Following are some main steps of the knowledge-engineering process. Using these steps,
we will develop a knowledge base which will allow us to reason about digital circuit (One-bit
full adder) which is given below

1. Identify the task:

The first step of the process is to identify the task, and for the digital circuit, there are
various reasoning tasks.

Backward Skip 10sPlay VideoForward Skip 10s

At the first level or highest level, we will examine the functionality of the circuit:

o Does the circuit add properly?

o What will be the output of gate A2, if all the inputs are high?
At the second level, we will examine the circuit structure details such as:
 o Which gate is connected to the first input terminal?
o Does the circuit have feedback loops?

2. Assemble the relevant knowledge:

In the second step, we will assemble the relevant knowledge which is required for digital
circuits. So for digital circuits, we have the following required knowledge:

o Logic circuits are made up of wires and gates.

o Signal flows through wires to the input terminal of the gate, and each gate
produces the corresponding output which flows further.
o In this logic circuit, there are four types of gates used: AND, OR, XOR, and NOT.
o All these gates have one output terminal and two input terminals (except NOT
gate, it has one input terminal).

3. Decide on vocabulary:
The next step of the process is to select functions, predicate, and constants to represent the
circuits, terminals, signals, and gates. Firstly we will distinguish the gates from each other
and from other objects. Each gate is represented as an object which is named by a
constant, such as, Gate(X1). The functionality of each gate is determined by its type, which
is taken as constants such as AND, OR, XOR, or NOT. Circuits will be identified by a
predicate: Circuit (C1).

For the terminal, we will use predicate: Terminal(x).

For gate input, we will use the function In(1, X1) for denoting the first input terminal of the
gate, and for output terminal we will use Out (1, X1).

The function Arity(c, i, j) is used to denote that circuit c has i input, j output.

The connectivity between gates can be represented by predicate Connect(Out(1, X1), In(1,
X1)).

We use a unary predicate On (t), which is true if the signal at a terminal is on.

4. Encode general knowledge about the domain:

To encode the general knowledge about the logic circuit, we need some following rules:

o If two terminals are connected then they have the same input signal, it can be
represented as:
1. ∀ t1, t2 Terminal (t1) ∧ Terminal (t2) ∧ Connect (t1, t2) → Signal (t1) = Signal (2).
 Signal at every terminal will have either value 0 or 1, it will be represented as:
1. ∀ t Terminal (t) →Signal (t) = 1 ∨Signal (t) = 0.
o

Connect predicates are commutative:

1. ∀ t1, t2 Connect(t1, t2) → Connect (t2, t1).
o

Representation of types of gates:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r = Type(g) → r = OR ∨r = AND ∨r = XOR ∨r = NOT.
o

Output of AND gate will be zero if and only if any of its input is zero.
1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = AND →Signal (Out(1, g))= 0 ⇔ ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 0.
o

Output of OR gate is 1 if and only if any of its input is 1:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = OR → Signal (Out(1, g))= 1 ⇔ ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 1
o

Output of XOR gate is 1 if and only if its inputs are different:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = XOR → Signal (Out(1, g)) = 1 ⇔ Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (In
o

(2, g)).

Output of NOT gate is invert of its input:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (Out(1, g)).
o

o All the gates in the above circuit have two inputs and one output (except NOT
gate).
1. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ Type(g) = NOT → Arity(g, 1, 1)
2. ∀ g Gate(g) ∧ r =Type(g) ∧ (r= AND ∨r= OR ∨r= XOR) → Arity (g, 2, 1).

All gates are logic circuits:

1. ∀ g Gate(g) → Circuit (g).
o

5. Encode a description of the problem instance:

Now we encode problem of circuit C1, firstly we categorize the circuit and its gate
components. This step is easy if ontology about the problem is already thought. This step
involves the writing simple atomics sentences of instances of concepts, which is known as
ontology.

For the given circuit C1, we can encode the problem instance in atomic sentences as
below:

Since in the circuit there are two XOR, two AND, and one OR gate so atomic sentences for
these gates will be:
1. For XOR gate: Type(x1)= XOR, Type(X2) = XOR
2. For AND gate: Type(A1) = AND, Type(A2)= AND
3. For OR gate: Type (O1) = OR.
And then represent the connections between all the gates.

Note: Ontology defines a particular theory of the nature of existence.

6. Pose queries to the inference procedure and get answers:

In this step, we will find all the possible set of values of all the terminal for the adder circuit.
The first query will be:

What should be the combination of input which would generate the first output of circuit C1,
as 0 and a second output to be 1?

1. ∃ i1, i2, i3 Signal (In(1, C1))=i1 ∧ Signal (In(2, C1))=i2 ∧ Signal (In(3, C1))= i3
2. ∧ Signal (Out(1, C1)) =0 ∧ Signal (Out(2, C1))=1

7. Debug the knowledge base:

Now we will debug the knowledge base, and this is the last step of the complete process. In
this step, we will try to debug the issues of knowledge base.

In the knowledge base, we may have omitted assertions like 1 ≠ 0.