A Formal Language
„ Predicate Logic provides a way to
Predicate Logic
Predicate vs Propositional
Logic
„ Predicate logic uses the same connectives
as propositional logic but allows you to
refer to different elements of the
universe.
„ It also introduces quantifiers…so you can
say things like..
„ It always rains in England.
„ Sometimes it is sunny in Bristol.
formalize natural language so that
ambiguity is removed.
„ Mathematical arguments (proofs) are
usually written in pseudo logic.
„ Many programming languages involve
elements of predicate logic. e.g. if..then
Propositional Logic Revised
„ Propositional Logic is a formal approach to
reasoning with or about declarative
sentences.
If David likes Mary then Mary likes David
David likes Mary
Mary likes David
1
 Semantics vs Proof Theory Truth-Tables
The truth value of compound sentences can then be
„ There are two approaches to reasoning in „

determined by application of truth tables defined for

propositional logic. each connective
A ¬A A B A∧B A B A→B
Semantics = truth tables and valuations t f t t t t t t
f t f t f f t t etc
t f f t f f
Proof theory = formal notion of proof from
f f f f f t
axioms and inference rule
A sentence B truth-functionally follows from sentence A if
for every row of the truth-table in which A is true B is also
true. Denoted A|=B

Formal Proof Relating Semantics and Proof

T=set of assumptions (sentences) then T|-A if we can
generate a sequence of sentences
S1,S2,…,Si-1,Si,…,Sn=A
Where either
Si=axiom
= a sentence in T (an assumption)
or
S1,…,Si-1→ (inference rule) Si
Soundness
Axioms for propositional logic Proof theory ⊆ Semantics
1. A→(B →A)
Completeness
2. (A →(B →C)) →((A →B)
→(A →C))
Semantics ⊆ Proof theory
3. (¬B → ¬A) →((¬B →A)
→B)
Propositional logic is sound and complete
Inference Rule: Modus
Ponens Semantics = Proof theory
From A,A→B infer B

2
 Predicate Logic: Introducing
Decidability Quantifiers
„ A formal logic is decidable if there is a mechanical „ Predicate logic allows for quantified statements by
(algorithmic) way of determining whether A follows introducing the quantifiers ∀ “for all” and ∃ “there
from T. exists”.
T|=A ? „ Why do we need quantifiers ? Consider
Propositional logic is
decidable: at worst we All birds have wings
need only consider Tweety is a bird
every row of the truth- Therefore, Tweety has wings
yes
table for which T is Propositional logic: All birds have wings= (Robins have
true, and there are only wings)∧(Crows have wings)∧(Eagles have wings)
finitely many. ∧..........etc.
No This is impractical.

Quantifiers 2: Functions
„ In predicate logic this translates to „ It is also desirable to be able to represent functional
relationships in predicate logic. Consider
∀x(B(x ) → W (x ))
• Unlike propositional logic,
predicate logic has variables- in
this case x.
Blue eyed people have blue eyed fathers
B(Tweety ) • It also has constants – in this Some people have blue eyes
case Tweety Therefore, some people’s fathers have blue eyes
∴W (Tweety ) • Tweety is an instantiation of
the predicates B and W. Translates to x is a variable ranging across all people

B(x)= x is a Bird, W(x)=x has wings,

( (
∀x BE(x ) → BE F (x ))) BE(x) -means “person x has blue eyes”
∀x (B(x)→W(x)) = For all x, if x is a bird then x has wings ∃xBE(x )
F is a function mapping from one
B(Tweety)=Tweety is a bird.
W(Tweety)=Tweety has wings
(
∴∃xBE F (x ) ) person x to another person F(x), where
F(x) is the father of x

3
 Syntax: Building Blocks for
Predicate Logic Syntax (2)
„ (2) Functions: FNL is a set of n-ary
„ Formula in predicate are built up from the functions.
following elements
„ F(x)=Father of x, D(x,y,z)=Day of the
„ (1) Predicates: PL is a set of n-ary weeks falling on the date x/y/z.
predicates. e.g. „ (3) Constants: CL is a set of constants
„ B(x)=x is a bird –unary e.g. Tweety, numbers, Aunty Ethel
„ M(x,y)=x is married to y –binary „ (4) Variables: a set of variables, x,y,z etc
„ BT(x,y,z)=y is between x and z –tertiary „ (5) Connectives, Quantifiers and
Brackets: ∀,∃,¬,∧,∨, (,),[,]

Terms Formula in Predicate Logic

„ Terms are possible instantiations of predicates.
„ Atomic Formula: The atomic formula ATL, have the
„ The set of terms TL is defined recursively in the form P(t1,...., tn) where P is an n-ary relation in PL
following way: and ti are terms for i=1,...,n
(i) All variables and constants are terms „ E.g. PNL={Rich,Happy},
(ii) If f is an n - ary function symbols and t1....tn are FNL={father,mother},CL={jim, fred, mary},
terms then f(t1....tn) is a term. VL={x,y}
FNL={father, mother, first-child}, CL={bill}, VL={x} - „ Atomic formula include…Rich(x), Happy(y), Rich(bill),
ranging across parents Happy(father(y)), Rich(mother(mary)),
Happy(father(mother(x))) etc
x, bill, father(x), mother(x), first-child(x), father(bill), mother(bill),
first-child(bill), father(father(x)), father(mother(x)), first-child(father(x))
father(father(bill)), father(mother(bill)),.......etc

4

Formula 2
„ Well-Formed Formula: The set of well-formed
formula WFL is defined recursively as follows:
(i) all atomic formula are well-formed formula
(ii) If F and G are well-formed formula so are (¬F),
(F∧G), (F∨G), (F→G), (F↔G)
(iii) If F is a well-formed formula and x∈VL then
(∀xF) and (∃xF) are well-formed formula.
E.g. Rich(x)∧Happy(x), Rich(x)→Happy(y),
Rich(bill)∨Happy(father(fred)),
(∀x¬ Happy(x))∧ ∃yRich(y)), ∀x(Rich(x) →Happy(x))
Translating from English to
Logic
„ “Anyone who is persistent can learn logic” translates
to ∀x(persistent(x)→learn(x, logic))
„ “All blocks which are on top of or attached to blocks
which have been moved, have also been moved”
translates to ∀x∀y((block(x)∧block(y)∧(ontop(x,y)∨
attached(x,y))∧moved(y))→moved(x))
„ “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and
you can fool all the people some of the time, but you
can’t fool all the people all the time” translates to
∃x∀y(person(x)∧time(y)∧fool-at(y,x)) ∧
∃y∀x(person(x)∧time(y)∧fool-at(y,x)) ∧
¬(∀x ∀y (person(x)∧time(y)∧fool-at(y,x)))
Translating from Logic to
English
„ Example: PL ={married, younger-than, equal} all binary
VL={x,y,z} ranging over all parents
CL={bill, john, george, mary}
FNL={father, mother, first-child} -all unary
Connectives ∧,∨,¬,→,↔
Quantifiers ∀,∃, Brackets
married(mary,john) translates to ”Mary is married to John”
equal(father(bill),george) translates to ”George is the father of Bill”
equal(mother(mother(bill)),mary) translates to ”Mary is the maternal
grandmother of Bill”
(equal(mother(x),y)∨equal(father(x),y)) translates to ”y is a parent of x”
∀x∀y(married(x,y)→ married(y,x)) translates to ”for any parents x and y
if x is married to y then y is married to x”
∀x∃y(equal(mother(x),y) translates to ”everyone has a mother”
Removing Ambiguity
„ Bertrand Russell gave the following example of how
translating to logic can remove ambiguity.
„ Consider the sentence “The current king of France is
bald”. Is this sentence true?
„ Translating to logic gives:
„ ∃x(KF(x)∧B(x))
„ KF(x)= x is the current king of France.
„ B(x)= x is bald.
„ This is clearly false! Why?
5
 Whoops-Missed a bit Declarative Formula
„ Some formula have a truth-value while others don’t.
Its only me!
So the correct translation is „ ∀x∃y(equal(mother(x),y) has a truth-value
∃xKF(x)∧ „ So does ∀x(Rich(x)→Happy(x))
∀x(KF(x)→∀y(KF(y)→equals(x,y)))∧
∀x(KF(x)→B(x)) „ But neither Rich(x) nor married(x,y)→ married(y,x)
have truth values.
Still false though! „ In predicate logic declarative formula are closed.
Non-declarative form are open.

What about “the current king of France is not bald” – is it

true or false?

Open and Closed Formula Open and Closed:2

„ Scope of a Quantifier: The scope of ∀x (resp. ∃x) in ∀x
F (resp ∃x F) is F
„ E.g. In ∀x(Rich(x)→Happy(x)) the scope of ∀x is
(Rich(x)→Happy(x))
„ In ∀x∃y(equal(mother(x),y) the scope of ∀x is
∃y(equal(mother(x),y) and the scope of ∃y is
(equal(mother(x),y)
„ Free and Bound Occurrence of a Variable: A bound
occurrence of a variable in a formula is an occurrence
immediately following a quantifier or an occurrence within
the scope of a quantifier, which has the same variable
immediately after the quantifier.
„ Any other variable is free.
„ Example: In the formula (∃xP(x,y))∧Q(x) the
occurrence of x in P(x,y) is bound but the occurrence
of x in Q(x) is free.
„ All occurrences of x in ∃x(P(x,y)∧Q(x)) are bound.
„ Open and Closed Formula: A closed formula is a
well-formed formula with no free occurrences of any
variable. An open formula is a formula that is not
closed
„ Example: ∀x∃y(equal(mother(x),y) is closed since
all occurrences of x fall within the cope of ∀x and all
occurrences of y fall within the sope of ∃y.

6
 Interpretations Interpretations:2
„ Really a language of predicate logic is only a set of U1 U2
symbols which can be interpreted in different ways. Formal Logic
„ Consider the formula: ∃y∀xP(x,y) I
PL={P,Q,R,..}
J PLJ={PJ,QJ,RJ,..}
PLI={PI,QI,RI,..} FLJ={fJ,gJ,hJ,..}
„ Quantification over natural numbers, P(x,y) means FLI={fI,gI,hI,..} FL={f,g,h,..}
CLJ={aJ,bJ,cJ,..}
CL={a,b,c,..}
x≥y then interpretation is `for all natural numbers x CLI={aI,bI,cI,..}
there is some natural y for which x≥y’
„ Quantification over people, P(x,y) means `y is the
father of x’ then interpretation is `there is some who
is the father of everyone’

Theories and Models Satisfiability

„ Theory: A theory of a language of
predicate logic L is any finite set of
closed well-formed formula of L.
„ Model: A model of a theory T is an
interpretation of L under which all the
formula in T are true.
„ A theory of L, is satisfiable if it has at
least one model.
„ Any theory that is not satisfiable is said
to be inconsistent.
„ Any theory for which every possible
interpretation is a model is said to be
valid.

7
 Satisfiability: 2 Example
Consider the following theories:
„ The theory consisting of the single „

formula ∃x(P(x)∧¬ P(x)) is inconsistent. T1 = {∀x∃yP( x, y ) → P(c, f (c ))}

„ The theory {∀x (P(x)→ P(x))} is valid. T2 = {∀xP( x, f ( x )) → ∃yP(c, y )}

„ Also consider the following two interpretations

Interpretation I: Let U1 be the set of all integers, cI=0,
fI is the successor function, PI is >

Interpretation J: Let U2 be the set of all integers,

cJ=0, fJ is the predecessor function, PI is ≠

Example: 2 Example: 3
Under I Under J
T1 means T1 means
If for every integer x there is some integer y such that x>y If for every integer x there is some integer y such that x≠y
then 0>0+1 then 0 ≠ 0-1
Clearly this is false since the antecedent is true and the Clearly this is true since both the antecedent and
consequence is false - I is not a model of T1 consequence are true - J is a model of T1
T2 means T2 means
If for every integer x x>x+1 then there exists an integer y If for every integer x, x ≠x-1 then there exists an integer y
such that 0>y such that 0≠y
This is true since the antecedent is false - I is a model of T2 This is true since, again, both antecedent and consequence
are true - J is a model of T2

8
 Example: 4
„ We see that T1 is not a valid theory since I
is not a model of T1.
„ Both I and J are models of T2. Is T2 valid?
„ Let K be any interpretation of L then T2
means
„ If for every element x∈U PK (x, fK(x)) then
there exists some element y∈U such that
PK(cK, y ).
Example: 5
„ Two possibilities
„ Antecedent false -in this case the
conditional is automatically true.
„ Antecedent true -in this case since cK∈U
we have PK (cK, fK(cK)) and hence the
consequence of the conditional must
also be true since we can select y to be
fK(cK).

Semantic Entailment Decidability

„ A theory T is said to entail a closed formula F is F is true T =F T ≠F
in every model of T.
T =F T =¬F
Proof Proof
models of F models of ¬F models of F models of ¬F Procedure Procedure Predicate logic is only
Query: does F Query: does F semi-decidable
models of T models of T
follow from T follow from T

models of F models of ¬F T ≠F
Algorithm terminate Algorithm may or
models of T T ≠¬F
and answers “yes” may not terminate
and answers “no”