Mixing
![How many positive integers $le 1260$ are relatively prime to $1260$? [duplicate]](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-H94kuz5MOLE/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/AKxrwcbxQKHKzteH5paS_vJwcl8ioUbrEg/s72-c-mo/photo.jpg?sz=32)
Interpretation of knowledge in first order logic
$begingroup$
I don't quite understand how to correctly interpret knowledge in First Order Logic.
Here is what I think about the different building blocks of FOL:
- Function: input: term(s) -> output: term
- Predicate: input: term(s) -> output: true/false
- Term: Function(Term,..) | Constant | Variable -> A term is like an object NOT a truth value
- Sentence: Predicate(Term(s)) | Term -> A sentence is like a complex predicate which evaluates to true/false once you replace the free variables with real objects
Is my understanding correct so far?
Now, I want to build a knowledge base in order to check later whether a fact is entailed in the knowledge base or not.
This is where I am confused.
Here is a simple fact:
All professors are male.
Version 1: ∀x prof(x) => male(x)
Version 2: ∀x prof(x) ∧ male(x)
Regarding version 1:
Interpretation
For me, the first one read as: "Every x who is a professor is automatically male." When x is not a professor the premise is false therefore you can conclude whatever you want. False => True/False. It's basically a free pass for every object which is not a prof. Is this correct? I guess it doesn't matter as it was not the idea to constraint other objects except professors.
Fact checking/Inference
When I later want to check a fact, e.g. Sarah is female and a professor.
I would insert Sarah for x and see that the implication is wrong and thus the new fact is not satisfied by the knowledge base. Is this correct?
Regarding version 2:
Interpretation
The second one reads as: "Every x who is a professor and also male." Then it stops without a conclusion. Here something like ∀x (prof(x) ∧ male(x)) => True seems to be missing. This is also confusing. Is it even possible to represent the fact not using an implication?
Fact checking/Inference
When I later want to check a fact, e.g. Sarah is female and a professor.
I would insert Sarah for x, prof(x) ∧ male(x) would be false as male(Sarah) is false. This looks correct. Are both versions correct after all?
Could someone help me understand how to correctly represent/interpret sentences in the knowledge base?
logic first-order-logic
asked Jan 3 at 11:43
sivasiva
213
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't quite understand how to correctly interpret knowledge in First Order Logic.
Here is what I think about the different building blocks of FOL:
- Function: input: term(s) -> output: term
- Predicate: input: term(s) -> output: true/false
- Term: Function(Term,..) | Constant | Variable -> A term is like an object NOT a truth value
- Sentence: Predicate(Term(s)) | Term -> A sentence is like a complex predicate which evaluates to true/false once you replace the free variables with real objects
Is my understanding correct so far?
Now, I want to build a knowledge base in order to check later whether a fact is entailed in the knowledge base or not.
This is where I am confused.
Here is a simple fact:
All professors are male.
Version 1: ∀x prof(x) => male(x)
Version 2: ∀x prof(x) ∧ male(x)
Regarding version 1:
Interpretation
For me, the first one read as: "Every x who is a professor is automatically male." When x is not a professor the premise is false therefore you can conclude whatever you want. False => True/False. It's basically a free pass for every object which is not a prof. Is this correct? I guess it doesn't matter as it was not the idea to constraint other objects except professors.
Fact checking/Inference
When I later want to check a fact, e.g. Sarah is female and a professor.
I would insert Sarah for x and see that the implication is wrong and thus the new fact is not satisfied by the knowledge base. Is this correct?
Regarding version 2:
Interpretation
The second one reads as: "Every x who is a professor and also male." Then it stops without a conclusion. Here something like ∀x (prof(x) ∧ male(x)) => True seems to be missing. This is also confusing. Is it even possible to represent the fact not using an implication?
Fact checking/Inference
When I later want to check a fact, e.g. Sarah is female and a professor.
I would insert Sarah for x, prof(x) ∧ male(x) would be false as male(Sarah) is false. This looks correct. Are both versions correct after all?
Could someone help me understand how to correctly represent/interpret sentences in the knowledge base?
logic first-order-logic
asked Jan 3 at 11:43
sivasiva
213
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Quite correct... maybe is better to say that terms like constants are "names" for objects.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:48
$begingroup$
For "All professors are male" the correct symbolization is Version 1: $∀x (Prof(x) to Male(x))$. If $x$ is not a $Prof$, don't worry, but if $x$ is a $Prof$ then it follows that it must be a $Male$.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:49
$begingroup$
"All professors are male" is falsified by a $Prof$ that is not a $Male$. Version 2, instead : $forall x (Prof(x) land Male(x))$ is falsified also by a $Male$ that is not a $Prof$, and this is not waht we want.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't quite understand how to correctly interpret knowledge in First Order Logic.
Here is what I think about the different building blocks of FOL:
- Function: input: term(s) -> output: term
- Predicate: input: term(s) -> output: true/false
- Term: Function(Term,..) | Constant | Variable -> A term is like an object NOT a truth value
- Sentence: Predicate(Term(s)) | Term -> A sentence is like a complex predicate which evaluates to true/false once you replace the free variables with real objects
Is my understanding correct so far?
Now, I want to build a knowledge base in order to check later whether a fact is entailed in the knowledge base or not.
This is where I am confused.
Here is a simple fact:
All professors are male.
Version 1: ∀x prof(x) => male(x)
Version 2: ∀x prof(x) ∧ male(x)
Regarding version 1:
Interpretation
For me, the first one read as: "Every x who is a professor is automatically male." When x is not a professor the premise is false therefore you can conclude whatever you want. False => True/False. It's basically a free pass for every object which is not a prof. Is this correct? I guess it doesn't matter as it was not the idea to constraint other objects except professors.
Fact checking/Inference
When I later want to check a fact, e.g. Sarah is female and a professor.
I would insert Sarah for x and see that the implication is wrong and thus the new fact is not satisfied by the knowledge base. Is this correct?
Regarding version 2:
Interpretation
The second one reads as: "Every x who is a professor and also male." Then it stops without a conclusion. Here something like ∀x (prof(x) ∧ male(x)) => True seems to be missing. This is also confusing. Is it even possible to represent the fact not using an implication?
Fact checking/Inference
When I later want to check a fact, e.g. Sarah is female and a professor.
I would insert Sarah for x, prof(x) ∧ male(x) would be false as male(Sarah) is false. This looks correct. Are both versions correct after all?
Could someone help me understand how to correctly represent/interpret sentences in the knowledge base?
logic first-order-logic
asked Jan 3 at 11:43
sivasiva
213
$endgroup$
I don't quite understand how to correctly interpret knowledge in First Order Logic.
Here is what I think about the different building blocks of FOL:
- Function: input: term(s) -> output: term
- Predicate: input: term(s) -> output: true/false
- Term: Function(Term,..) | Constant | Variable -> A term is like an object NOT a truth value
- Sentence: Predicate(Term(s)) | Term -> A sentence is like a complex predicate which evaluates to true/false once you replace the free variables with real objects
Is my understanding correct so far?
Now, I want to build a knowledge base in order to check later whether a fact is entailed in the knowledge base or not.
This is where I am confused.
Here is a simple fact:
All professors are male.
Version 1: ∀x prof(x) => male(x)
Version 2: ∀x prof(x) ∧ male(x)
Regarding version 1:
Interpretation
For me, the first one read as: "Every x who is a professor is automatically male." When x is not a professor the premise is false therefore you can conclude whatever you want. False => True/False. It's basically a free pass for every object which is not a prof. Is this correct? I guess it doesn't matter as it was not the idea to constraint other objects except professors.
Fact checking/Inference
When I later want to check a fact, e.g. Sarah is female and a professor.
I would insert Sarah for x and see that the implication is wrong and thus the new fact is not satisfied by the knowledge base. Is this correct?
Regarding version 2:
Interpretation
The second one reads as: "Every x who is a professor and also male." Then it stops without a conclusion. Here something like ∀x (prof(x) ∧ male(x)) => True seems to be missing. This is also confusing. Is it even possible to represent the fact not using an implication?
Fact checking/Inference
When I later want to check a fact, e.g. Sarah is female and a professor.
I would insert Sarah for x, prof(x) ∧ male(x) would be false as male(Sarah) is false. This looks correct. Are both versions correct after all?
Could someone help me understand how to correctly represent/interpret sentences in the knowledge base?
logic first-order-logic
logic first-order-logic
asked Jan 3 at 11:43
sivasiva
213
asked Jan 3 at 11:43
sivasiva
213
asked Jan 3 at 11:43
sivasiva
213
asked Jan 3 at 11:43
sivasiva
213
asked Jan 3 at 11:43
sivasiva
213
213
$begingroup$
Quite correct... maybe is better to say that terms like constants are "names" for objects.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:48
$begingroup$
For "All professors are male" the correct symbolization is Version 1: $∀x (Prof(x) to Male(x))$. If $x$ is not a $Prof$, don't worry, but if $x$ is a $Prof$ then it follows that it must be a $Male$.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:49
$begingroup$
"All professors are male" is falsified by a $Prof$ that is not a $Male$. Version 2, instead : $forall x (Prof(x) land Male(x))$ is falsified also by a $Male$ that is not a $Prof$, and this is not waht we want.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:53
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Quite correct... maybe is better to say that terms like constants are "names" for objects.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:48
$begingroup$
For "All professors are male" the correct symbolization is Version 1: $∀x (Prof(x) to Male(x))$. If $x$ is not a $Prof$, don't worry, but if $x$ is a $Prof$ then it follows that it must be a $Male$.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:49
$begingroup$
"All professors are male" is falsified by a $Prof$ that is not a $Male$. Version 2, instead : $forall x (Prof(x) land Male(x))$ is falsified also by a $Male$ that is not a $Prof$, and this is not waht we want.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:53
$begingroup$
Quite correct... maybe is better to say that terms like constants are "names" for objects.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:48
$begingroup$
Quite correct... maybe is better to say that terms like constants are "names" for objects.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:48
$begingroup$
For "All professors are male" the correct symbolization is Version 1: $∀x (Prof(x) to Male(x))$. If $x$ is not a $Prof$, don't worry, but if $x$ is a $Prof$ then it follows that it must be a $Male$.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:49
$begingroup$
For "All professors are male" the correct symbolization is Version 1: $∀x (Prof(x) to Male(x))$. If $x$ is not a $Prof$, don't worry, but if $x$ is a $Prof$ then it follows that it must be a $Male$.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:49
$begingroup$
"All professors are male" is falsified by a $Prof$ that is not a $Male$. Version 2, instead : $forall x (Prof(x) land Male(x))$ is falsified also by a $Male$ that is not a $Prof$, and this is not waht we want.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:53
$begingroup$
"All professors are male" is falsified by a $Prof$ that is not a $Male$. Version 2, instead : $forall x (Prof(x) land Male(x))$ is falsified also by a $Male$ that is not a $Prof$, and this is not waht we want.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:53
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060478%2finterpretation-of-knowledge-in-first-order-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060478%2finterpretation-of-knowledge-in-first-order-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Quite correct... maybe is better to say that terms like constants are "names" for objects.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:48
$begingroup$
For "All professors are male" the correct symbolization is Version 1: $∀x (Prof(x) to Male(x))$. If $x$ is not a $Prof$, don't worry, but if $x$ is a $Prof$ then it follows that it must be a $Male$.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:49
$begingroup$
"All professors are male" is falsified by a $Prof$ that is not a $Male$. Version 2, instead : $forall x (Prof(x) land Male(x))$ is falsified also by a $Male$ that is not a $Prof$, and this is not waht we want.
$endgroup$
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Jan 3 at 11:53