"Using the Propositional Calculus"
Some of this knowledge takes the form of implications, If A then B.
There are logically sound rules of inference available for combining true-false statements.
These inferences can be performed
by a computer.
"If both networks A and B are
up, then John can send a message to the world gateway. If either
network C or D is up, then Marie can receive a message from the world gateway.
If John can send a message to the world gateway and Marie can receive a
message from it, then John can send to Marie."
"If networks A is up and network B is up, then John can send a message to the world gateway. If network C is up or network D is up, then Marie can receive a message from the world gateway. If John can send a message to the world gateway and Marie can receive a message from the world gateway, then John can send a message to Marie."
P1: Network A is up.
P2. Network B is up.
P3: Network C is up.
P4: Network D is up.
Q1: John can send a message to
the world gateway.
Q2: Marie can receive a message
from the world gateway.
Q3: John can send a messsage to
Marie.
1. (P1 ^ P2) => Q1
2. (P3 v P4) => Q2
3. (Q1 ^ Q2) => Q3
((P1 ^ P2) => Q1) ^ ((P3 v P4) =>
Q2) ^ ((Q1 ^ Q2) => Q3)
Substitute antecedents for pronouns.
Expand abbreviations.
Expand factored phrases so that
each fact is expressed with a clause consisting of a subject and a predicate.
Generally each clause represents
one atomic proposition.
Due to wording variations, one atomic proposition might appear in English in several different forms.
Assign a proposition symbol (e.g.,
P, Q, R, P1, P2, etc) to each atomic proposition.
Expressing Logical Relationships
Conjunctions normally use AND or BOTH == AND or ALL.
Disjunctions normally use OR or EITHER -- OR, or ANY.
Implications generally use IF -- THEN -- or WHENEVER x is true, y is true.
Negation uses NOT.
NEITHER -- NOR expresses a conjunction
of negations.
Making Inferences with Modus Ponens
P, P --> Q
therefore
Q
Forward Chaining:
P, P --> Q, Q --> R
therefore
R
.
Example Inferences
Add to the above list of premises:
4. P1
5. P2
6. P4
Prove Q3
Derivation...
7. P1 ^ P2 make conjunction
of 4 and 5 explicit
8. Q1
apply modus ponens using 7 and 1.
9. P4 v P3 disjunctive syllogism
with 6.
10. P3 v P4 commute in 9
11. Q2
apply modus ponents using 10 and 2.
12. Q1 ^ Q2 make conjunction
of 8 and 11 explicit.
13. Q3
apply modus ponens using 12 and 3.
Q.E.D. quod erat demonstrandum
Last modified: October 16, 1998
Steve Tanimoto