UNIT – 3

LOGIC AND KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION

INTRODUCTION
 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.
"Some humans are intelligent" or "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
 First-order logic is another way of knowledge representation in artificial intelligence. It is an extension to
propositional logic.
 FOL is sufficiently expressive to represent the natural language statements in a concise way.
 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 an easier way and can also express the
relationship between those objects.
 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:
Objects: A, B, people, numbers, colors, wars, theories, squares, pits, Wumpus,
Relations: It can be unary relation such as: red, round, is adjacent, or n-ary relation such as: the sister of,
brother of, has color, comes between
Function: Father of, best friend, third inning of, end of,
 As a natural language, first-order logic also has two main parts:
a. Syntax
b. 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.

Example: John likes all kind of food

Conversion of facts into FOL:
∀x: food(x) → likes(John, x)

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
 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.
 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
 Complex sentences are made by combining atomic sentences using connectives.

First-order logic statements can be divided into two parts:

 Subject: Subject is the main part of the statement.
 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.
X is an integer.

Subject Predicate

Quantifiers in First-order logic

 A quantifier is a language element which generates quantification, and quantification specifies the
quantity of specimen in the universe of discourse.
 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 quantifiers: a. Universal Quantifier, (for all, everyone, everything) b. Existential
Quantifier, (for some, at least one).

a. 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.
 If x is a variable, then ∀x is read as:
 For all x
 For each x
 For every x.

Example: All man drink coffee.

Solution: 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.
b. 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.
 If x is a variable, then existential quantifier will be ∃x or ∃(x). And it will be read as: There exists a ‘x.’
For some ‘x.’ For at least one ‘x.’

∃x: boys(x) ∧ intelligent(x)

It will be read as: There are some x where x is a boy who is intelligent.
Using First Order Logic
Points to remember:
 The main connective for universal quantifier ∀ is implication →.
 The main connective for existential quantifier ∃ is ∧.
Properties of Quantifiers:
 In universal quantifier, ∀x∀y is similar to ∀y∀x.
 In Existential quantifier, ∃x∃y is similar to ∃y∃x.
 ∃x∀y is not similar to ∀y∃x.
Some Examples of FOL using quantifier:
1. All birds fly.
In this question the predicate is "fly(bird)".
And since there are all birds who fly so it will be represented as follows,
∀x bird(x) → fly(x).
2. Every man respects his parent.
In this question, the predicate is “respect(x, y),” where x = man, and y = parent. Since there every man so will
use ∀, and it will be represented as follows:
∀x man(x) → respect(x, parent).
3. Some boys play cricket.
In this question, the predicate is “play(x, y),” where x = boys, and y = game. Since there are some boys so we
will use ∃, and it will be represented as:
∃x boys(x) → play(x, cricket).

4. Not all students like both Mathematics and Science.

In this question, the predicate is “like (x, y),” where x = student, and y = subject. Since there are not all
students, so we will use ¬ with the negation, so following representation for this:
¬∀(x) [student(x) → like (x, Mathematics) ∧ like (x, Science)].
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 representation for this:
∃!x) [student(x) → failed (x, Mathematics) ∧ ∀(y) [¬(x==y) ∧ student(y) → ¬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.
Example of FOL:
1. Bhaskar likes aeroplanes. Likes(bhaskar, aeroplanes).
2. Ravi’s father is rani’s father. Father(father(ravi), rani)).
3. Plato is a man. Man(plato).
4. Ram likes mango. Likes(ram, mango).
5. Sima is a girl. Girl(sima).
6. Rose is red. Red(rose).
7. John owns gold. Owns(john, gold).
8. Ram is taller than mohan. Taller(ram, mohan).
9. My name is khan. Name(khan) or Name(my, khan)
10. Apple is fruit. Fruit(apple).
11. Ram is male. Male(ram).
12. Dashrath is ram’s father. Father(dashrath, ram).
13. Kush is son of ram. Son(kush, ram).
14. All kings are person. ∀x: Kings(x) → Person(x).
15. Nobody loves john. ∀x: ¬Loves(x, john).
16. Everyone has a father. ∀x: ∃y: Father(y,x).

Translate to predicate logic:

1. Marcus was a man. → Man(Marcus).
2. Marcus was a Pompeian. → Pompeian(Marcus).
3. All Pompeians were Romans. → ∀x: Pompeian(x) → Roman(x).
4. Caesar was a ruler. → Ruler(Caesar).
5. All Romans were either loyal to Caesar → ∀x: Roman(x) → [LoyalTo(x, Caesar) ∨ Hate(x,
Caesar)]. or hated him.
6. Everyone is loyal to someone. → ∀x: ∃y: LoyalTo(x, y).
7. People only try to assassinate rulers they → ∀x: ∀y: [Person(x) ∧ Ruler(y) ∧
aren’t loyal to. TryAssassinate(x, y) → ¬LoyalTo(x, y)].
8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar. → TryAssassinate(Marcus, Caesar).
9. All men are people. → ∀x: Men(x) → People(x).

Translate in predicate logic

1. Marcus was a man.
Man(Marcus).
2. Marcus was a Pompeian.
Pompeian(marcus)
 3. All Pompeian were Romans.
∀x: Pompeian(x) → Roman(x)
4. Caesar was a ruler.
Ruler(Caesar)
5. All Romans were either loyal to Caesar or hated him
∀x: Roman(x) →LoyalTo(x,Caesar) v Hate(x,Caesar)
6. Everyone is loyal to someone,
∀x: ∃y: LoyalTo(x,y)
7. People only try to assassinate rulers they aren't loyal to
∀x: ∀y: Person(x) ∧ Rulerty) ∧ Try Assassinate(x,y) → ¬LoyalTo(x,y)]
8. Marcus tried to assassinate Caesar.
TryAssassinate(Marcus, Caesar)
9. All men are people.
∀x: Men(x) People(x)

Example with solution:

Translate into predicate logic
 Hari likes all kind of fine
 Bananas are food
 Apples are food
 Anything anyone cats and isn’t killed by food
 Hari cats everything ram cats

Solution
 ∀x: Food(x) →Likes(hari, x)
 Food (bananas)
 Food(apples)
 ∀x: ∃y: Eats(y,x) Killed by(y,x) →Food(x)
 ∀x: eats(ram, x) →eats(hari, x).

Example with solution

1. Every gardener likes the sun.
2. Not Every gardener likes the sun.
3. You can foot some of the people all of the time.
4. You can fool all of the people some of the time
5. You can fool all of the people at same time
6. You can not fool all of the people all of the time.
7. Everyone is younger than his father.
Solution
1. (∀x): gardener(x) => likes(x, Sun)
2. ¬((∀x) :gardener(x) => likes(x, Sun))
3. (∃x):(∀t) :person(x) ^ time(t) => can-be-fooled(x, t)
4. (∀x):(∃t) :person(x) ^ time(t) => can-be-fooled(x,t)
5. (∃t):(∀x) :person(x) ^ time(t) => can-be-fooled(x, t)
6. ¬((∀x):(∀t): person(x) ^ time(t) => can-be-fooled(x, t))
7. (∀x) :person(x) => younger(x, father(x))
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.
At the first level or highest level, we will examine the functionality of the circuit:
 Does the circuit add properly?
 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:
 Which gate is connected to the first input terminal?
 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:
 Logic circuits are made up of wires and gates.
 Signal flows through wires to the input terminal of the gate, and each gate produces the corresponding
output which flows further.
 In this logic circuit, there are four types of gates used: AND, OR, XOR, and NOT.
 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, XI) 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 e 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:
 If two terminals are connected then they have the same input signal, it can be represented as:
∀ 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:
∀ t Terminal (t)→Signal (t) = 1 VSignal (t) = 0.
Connect predicates are commutative:
∀ t1, t2 Connect(t1, t2) → Connect (t2, t1).
Representation of types of gates:
∀ gGate(g) ^ r = Type(g)→r = OR vr = AND vr = XOR vr = NOT.
Output of AND gate will be zero if and only if any of its input is zero.
∀ g Gate(g) ^ Type(g) = AND → Signal (Out(1, g))=0<=> ∃n Signal (In(n, g))=0.
Output of OR gate is 1 if and only if any of its input is 1:
∀ g Gate(g) ^ Type(g) = OR→ Signal (Out(t, g))=1 <=> ∃n Signal (In(n, g))= 1
Output of XOR gate is 1 if and only if its inputs are different:
∀ g Gate(g) ^ Type(g) = XOR → Signal (Out(1, g))=1<=> Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (In(2, g)).
Output of NOT gate is invert of its input:
∀ g Gate(g) ^ Type(g) = NOT → Signal (In(1, g)) ≠ Signal (Out(1, g)).
0 All the gates in the above circuit have two inputs and one output (except NOT gate).
∀ g Gate(g) ^ Type(g) = NOT → Arity(g, 1, 1)
∀ g Gate(g) ^ r=Type(g) ^ (r= AND vr=OR vr-XOR) → Arity (g, 2, 1).
All gates are logic circuits:
∀ g Gate(g) → Circuit (g).
5. Encode a description of the problem instance:
 Now we encode problem of circuit Cl, 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 Cl, 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:
For XOR gate: Type(x1)= XOR, Type(X2) = XOR
For AND gate: Type(A1) AND, Type(A2)= AND
For OR gate: Type (O1) = OR.
And then represent the connections between all the gates.

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

In this step, we will find all the possible set of values of the entire 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?
∃ i1, i2, i3 Signal (In(1, C1))=i1 ^ Signal (In(2, C1))=i2 ^ Signal (In(3, C1))= i3 ^ 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 10.
PROPOSITIONAL VS. FIRST-ORDER INFERENCE
i. Propositional logic
 Propositional logic (PL) is a statement made by propositions.
 It is a simple form of logic.
 Propositions are declarative statements which are either true or false.
 PL is a technique often used in logical and mathematical form.
 When we study PL, we usually start with formal natural language arguments, but they can also be
expressed mathematically.
 Propositional logic is based on formal logic, deductive reason and Boolean logic.
 We use symbolic variables to represent the logic. Often true and false can be symbolized by 1 and 0.
 Propositional logic also consists of an object, relations or function, and logical connectives.

Symbol Definition
A Assertion
¬A Negation
A^B Conjunction
AvB Disjunction
A =>B Implication
A<=B Reduction
A B Equivalence

FIRST ORDER LOGIC

First-order logic (FOL), Predicate logic or First-order predicate logic is an extension to propositional logic.
First-order logic expresses information about objects and expresses relationships between those objects in a
more functional way in comparison to propositional logic.
 First-order logic is more concise than propositional logic.
 In First-order logic, the statements are divided into two parts: the subject and the predicate.
 The predicate is not a proposition.
 It is neither true nor false.
 Predicates use variables and objects like people, colors, numbers, letters or ideas.
 They can also represent relationships and functions.
 Both syntax and semantics are important to first-order logic.
 Symbols are the basic syntax of FOL and can be written in shorthand.
 Syntax is the structure of the logical statements. Semantics gives meaning to the statements.
Examples:
Every man has a heart ∀x man(x) have (x, heart).
Some men are mean = ∃x: man(x) ^ mean(x).

UNIFICATION AND LIFTING

Unification is a process of making two different logical atomic expressions identical by finding a substitution.
Unification depends on the substitution process.
It takes two literals as input and makes them identical using substitution.
Let Ψ1 and Ψ2 be two atomic sentences and σ be a unifier such that, Ψ1σ = Ψ2σ, then it can be expressed as
UNIFY (Ψ1, Ψ2).
Example: Find the MGU for Unify King(x), King (John)}
Let Ψ1=King(x), Ψ2= King (John),
Substitution: 0 = (John/x) is a unifier for these atoms and applying this substitution, and both expressions will
be identical.
The UNIFY algorithm is used for unification, which takes two atomic sentences and returns a unifier for those
sentences (If any exist).
Unification is a key component of all first-order inference algorithms.
 It returns fail if the expressions do not match with each other.
 The substitution variables are called Most General Unifier or MGU.

Example: Let's say there are two different expressions, P(x, y), and P(a, f(z)).
In this example, we need to make both above statements identical to each other.
For this, we will perform the substitution.
P(x, y).......... (i)
P (a, f(z)).......... (ii)
 Substitute x with a, and y with f(z) in the first expression, and it will be represented as a/x and f(z)/y.
 With both the substitutions, the first expression will be identical to the second expression and the
substitution set will be: [a/x, f(z)/y].

Conditions for Unification:

Following are some basic conditions for unification:
 Predicate symbol must be same, atoms or expression with different predicate symbol can never be unified.
 Number of Arguments in both expressions must be identical.
 Unification will fail if there are two similar variables present in the same expression.
Algorithm:
Step 1: If Ψ1 or Ψ2 is a variable or constant, then:
a) If Ψ1 or Ψ2 are identical, then return NIL.
b) Else if is a variable,
a. then if occurs in, then return FAILURE
b. Else return {( Ψ1 / Ψ2)).
c) Else if is a variable,
a. If occurs in then return FAILURE,
b. Else return {( Ψ1 / Ψ2).
d) Else return FAILURE.
Step 2: If the initial Predicate symbol in Ψ1 and Ψ2 are not same, then return FAILURE.
Step 3: IF Ψ1 and Ψ2 and have a different number of arguments, then return FAILURE.
Step 4: Set Substitution set (SUBST) to NIL.
Step 5: For i=1 to the number of elements in Ψ1
a) Call Unify function with the ith element of Ψ1 and ith element of, Ψ2 and put the result into
b) If S = failure then returns Failure
c) If 5 ≠ NIL then do,
a. Apply S to the remainder of both L1 and 12.
b. SUBST = APPEND(S, SUBST).
Step 6: Return SUBST.

Implementation of the Algorithm:

Step.1: Initialize the substitution set to be empty.
Step.2: Recursively unify atomic sentences:
a. Check for Identical expression match.
b. If one expression is a variable vi, and the other is a term ti, which does not contain variable vi, then:
a. Substitute ti/vi, in the existing substitutions
b. Add ti/vi; to the substitution setlist.
c. If both the expressions are functions, then function name must be similar, and the number of
arguments must be the same in both the expression.
Example 1:
Find the MGU of {p(f(a), g(Y)) and p(X, X)}.
Sol: S0=> Here,
Ψ1 = (f(a), g(Y)), and
 Ψ2=p(X, X)
SUBST 0={f(a)/X}
S1=> Ψ1 =p(f(a), g(Y)), and Ψ2=p(f(a), f(a))
SUBST 0= (f(a)/g(y)),
Unification failed.
Unification is not possible for these expressions.

Example 2:
Find the MGU of {p(b, X, f(g(Z))) and p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))}
Sol: Here, Ψ1=p (b, X, f(g(Z)))
Ψ2=p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))
S0={p(b, X, f(g(Z))); p(Z, f(Y), f(Y))}
SUBST 0-[b/Z]
S1=>{p(b, X, f(g(b))); p(b, f(Y), f(Y))}
SUBST 0={f(Y)/X)}
S2={p(b, f(Y), f(g(b))); p(b, f(Y), f(Y))}
SUBST 0= {g(b)/Y}
S2=> {p(b, f(g(b)), f(g(b)); p(b, f(g(b)), f(g(b))}
Unified Successfully.
And Unifier b/Z, f(Y)/X. g(b)/Y).

Example 3:
Find the MGU of {p (X, X), and p (Z, f(Z))}
Sol: Here, Ψ1={ p (X, X)
Ψ2= p (Z, f(Z))
S0={p (X, X), p (Z, f(Z))}
SUBST 0=(X/Z}
S1=>{p (Z, Z), p (Z, f(Z))}
SUBST 0={f(Z)/Z},
Unification Failed.
Therefore, unification is not possible for these expressions.

Example 4:
UNIFY (knows (Richard, x), knows (Richard, John))
Sol: Here. Ψ1= knows (Richard, x)
Ψ2=knows (Richard, John)
S0={knows(Richard, x); knows(Richard, John)
S SUBST 0 ={John/x}
S₁=> {knows(Richard, John); knows(Richard, John)},
Successfully Unified.
Unifier: (John/x).

Example 5:
Find the MGU of UNIFY (prime (11), prime(y)).
Sol: Here, Ψ1 (prime (11), and Ψ2= prime(y)}
So=> {prime(11), prime(y)}
SUBST 0= {11/y}
S1=>{ (prime (11), prime (11)},
successfully unified.
Unifier: {11/y}.
Example 6:
Find the MGU of Q (a, g(x, a), f(y)), Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)}
Sol: Here, Ψ1=Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)), and Ψ2=Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)
S0=> {Q(a, g(x, a), f(y)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), x)}
SUBST 0 (f(b)/x}
S1=> {(Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(y)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b))}
SUBST 0 [b/y)
S1=>{Q(a. g(f(b), a), f(b)); Q(a, g(f(b), a), f(b))}
Successfully Unified.
Unifier: a/a, f(b)/x, b/y].

UNIFY (knows (Richard, x), knows(Richard, John))

Here, Ψ1=knows (Richard, x), and Ψ2=knows (Richard, John)
S0=>{ knows (Richard, x); knows(Richard, John)}
SUBST 0=(John/x)
S1=>{ knows(Richard, John); knows(Richard, John)},
Successfully Unified.
Unifier: (John/x).

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.
i. 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".
ii. 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:
 Universal Generalization
 Universal Instantiation
 Existential Instantiation
 Existential Introduction
1. Universal Generalization:
Universal generalization is a valid inference rule which states that if premise P(c) is true for any arbitrary
element e in the universe of discourse, then we can have a conclusion as ∀ x P(x).
P(c)/∀x P(x)
It can be represented as:
This rule can be used if we want to show that every element has a similar property.
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:
Universal instantiation is also called as universal elimination or Ul is a valid inference rule. It can be applied
multiple times to add new sentences.
The new KB is logically equivalent to the previous KB.
As per UI, we can infer any sentence obtained by substituting a ground term for the variable.
The UI rule state that we can infer any sentence P(c) by substituting a ground term c (a constant within domain
x) from ∀ x P(x) for any object in the universe of discourse.
It can be represented as:
∀x P(x)/P(c)
Example: 1
IF "Every person "John likes ice-cream" like P(c) ice-cream"=> 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) A 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),
King(Father(John)) ^ Greedy (Father(John)) →Evil (Father(John)),

3. Existential Instantiation:
Existential instantiation is also called as Existential Elimination, which is a valid inference rule in first-order
logic.
It can be applied only once to replace the existential sentence.
The new KB is not logically equivalent to old KB, but it will be satisfiable if old KB was satisfiable.
This rule states that one can infer P(c) from the formula given in the form of 3x P(x) for a new constant symbol
c.
The restriction with this rule is that e used in the rule must be a new term for which P(c) is true.
It can be represented as: Ǝx P(x)/P(c)
Example:
From the given sentence: Ǝx 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..
The above used K is a constant symbol, which is called Skolem constant.
The Existential instantiation is a special case of Skolemization process.

4. Existential introduction:
An existential introduction is also known as an existential generalization, which is a valid inference rule in first-
order logic.
This rule states that if there is some element e 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.
It can be represented as P(c)/ƎxP(x)
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 ᴓ such that SUBST (0,
pi',) SUBST(ᴓ, pi), it can be represented as: p1'.p2'….pn' (p1^ p2^... ^pn pnq)/SUBST(ᴓ,q)
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.
Here let say, pl' is king(John) pl is king(x)
p2' is Greedy(y) p2 is Greedy(x)
ᴓ is (x/John, y/John} q is evil(x)
SUBST (ᴓ.q).

FORWARD AND BACKWARD 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:
 It is a down-up approach, as it moves from bottom to top.
 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.
 Forward-chaining approach is also called as data-driven as we reach to the goal using available data.
 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:
 It is a crime for an American to sell weapons to hostile nations. (Let's say p, q, and r are variables)
American (p) ^ weapon (q) A sells (p, q, r) ^ hostile(r) -> Criminal (p) ...(1)
 Country A has some missiles.
?p Owns(A, p) ^ Missile(p). It can be written in two definite clauses by using Existential Instantiation,
introducing new Constant T1.
Owns (A, T1) ...(2)
Missile (T1) ...(3)
 All of the missiles were sold to country A by Robert.
?p Missiles(p) ^ Owns (A, p) - Sells (Robert, p, A) ...(4)
 Missiles are weapons.
Missile(p) - Weapons (p) ...(5)
 Enemy of America is known as hostile.
Enemy(p, America) -Hostile(p) ...(6)
 Country A is an enemy of America.
Enemy (A, America) ...(7)
  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.

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:
 It is known as a top-down approach.
 Backward-chaining is based on modus ponens inference rule.
 In backward chaining, the goal is broken into sub-goal or sub-goals to prove the facts true.
 It is called a goal-driven approach, as a list of goals decides which rules are selected and used.
 Backward -chaining algorithm is used in game theory, automated theorem proving tools,
inference engines, proof assistants, and various AI applications.
  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.
 American (p) ^ weapon(q) A sells (p, q, r) ^ hostile(r) → Criminal(p) ...(1)
Owns(A, T1) ...(2)
 Missile (T1) ...(3)
 ?p Missiles(p) ^ Owns (A, p) - Sells (Robert, p, A) ...(4)
 Missile(p) → Weapons (p) ...(5)
 Enemy(p, America) →Hostile(p) ...(6)
 Enemy (A, America) …..(7)
 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: 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.

Forward chaining Backward chaining

1. Forward chaining begins with known facts and uses Backward chaining starts with the objective and works
inference rules to extract more data units until it backwards using inference rules to locate the
gets the desired outcome. necessary facts to support it.
2. It is a bottom-up approach. It is a top-down approach.
3. Forward chaining is also regarded as a data- Backward chaining is a goal-driven strategy since it
driven inference strategy because it allows us to begins with the objective and divides it into sub-goals
attain our goal using the data we already have. in order to extract the facts.
4. Forward chaining is also regarded as a data-driven Backward chaining is a goal-driven strategy since it
inference strategy because it allows us to attain our begins with the objective and divides it into sub-goals
goal using the data we already have. in order to extract the facts.
5. All of the available rules are subjected to forward Only a few required rules are tested via backward
chaining testing. chaining.
 6. Forward chaining is appropriate for applications Backward chaining is a useful technique for
such as planning, monitoring, control, and diagnosing, prescribing, and debugging.
interpretation.
7. Forward chaining can lead to an unlimited number The number of possible conclusions generated by
of different outcomes. backward chaining is finite.
8. It works in the forward direction. It works in the backward direction.
9. The goal of forward chaining is to reach any Backward chaining is only for the data that is required.
conclusion.

RESOLUTION IN FOL
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.

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.
l1 V….Vlk, m1 V….. V mn
SUBST(ᴓ, 11 V…. Vli-1 V li+1V….V lk Vm1 V mj-1V mj+1V.....V mn)
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 ᴓ = [a/f(x), and b/x], and it will generate a resolvent clause:
[Animal (g(x) ¬ 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
a. John likes all kind of food.
b. Apple and vegetable are food
c. Anything anyone eats and not killed is food.
d. Anil eats peanuts and still alive
e. Harry eats everything that Anil eats.
Prove by resolution that:
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.
a. ∀x: food(x) → likes(John, x)
b. food(Apple) ∧ food(vegetables)
c. ∀x ∀y: eats(x, y) ∧ ¬killed(x) → food(y)
d. eats(Anil, Peanuts) ∧ alive(Anil).
e. ∀x: eats(Anil, x) → eats(Harry, x)
f. ∀x: ¬killed(x) → alive(x)
g. ∀x: alive(x) → killed(x)
h. likes(John, Peanuts)
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.
Eliminate all implication (→) and rewrite
1. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
3. ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)
4. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
5. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
6. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
7. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
8. likes(John, Peanuts).

Move negation (¬)inwards and rewrite

1. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
3. ∀x ∀y ¬ eats(x, y) V killed(x) V food(y)
4. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
5. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
6. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
7. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
8. likes(John, Peanuts).

Rename variables or standardize variables

1. ∀x ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple) Λ food(vegetables)
3. ∀y ∀z ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
4. eats (Anil, Peanuts) Λ alive(Anil)
5. ∀x ¬ eats(Anil, x) V eats(Harry, x)
6. ∀x ¬killed(x) ] V alive(x)
7. ∀x ¬ alive(x) V ¬ killed(x)
8. likes(John, Peanuts).

Eliminate existential instantiation quantifier by elimination.

In this step, we will eliminate existential quantifier 3, and this process is known as Skolemization. But in this
example problem since there is no existential quantifier so all the statements will remain same in this step
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.
1. ¬ food(x) V likes(John, x)
2. food(Apple)
3. food(vegetables)
4. ¬ eats(y, z) V killed(y) V food(z)
5. eats (Anil, Peanuts)
6. alive(Anil)
7. ¬ eats(Anil, w) V eats(Harry, w)
8. killed(g) V alive(g)
9. ¬ alive(k) V ¬ killed(k)
10. likes(John, Peanuts).
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

 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)
 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).
 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).
 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).
 In the last step of the resolution graph alive (Anil) and alive (Anil) get resolved.