Differenze tra le versioni di "Logica fuzzy"

Da WikiDsy.
(Semantic)
(Semantic)
Riga 96: Riga 96:
 
<math>\models \alpha</math> tautology<br>
 
<math>\models \alpha</math> tautology<br>
 
<math>\not\models \alpha</math> refutable<br>
 
<math>\not\models \alpha</math> refutable<br>
 +
 +
In these notes we abbreviate<br>
 +
<math>((\alpha \to \beta) \and (\beta \to \alpha))</math><br>
 +
with<br>
 +
<math>(\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta)</math><br>
 +
and it can be read like "if and only if".

Versione delle 14:30, 17 ott 2012

Disambigua compass.PNG
Questa è una pagina di introduzione al corso: contiene i turni, le modalità d'insegnamento, alcune informazioni generali ed eventuali giudizi sul corso in questione. Se sei giunto qui passando da un link, puoi tornare indietro e correggerlo in modo che punti direttamente alla voce appropriata.

A.A. passati

Information

Course's website
Times and classrooms:
Monday 15:30 - 17:30 - Room 5 (Ground floor - via comelico 39)
Friday 10:30 - 12:30 - Room 5

Lessons' notes

This notes are written in english to help foreign students to follow this course.

Classical Propositional Logic

We are going to describe the classical propositional logic (L.P.C) language.

Syntax

The syntax of a language is the set of rules that specify how the elements of the language are formed regardless their meaning.

Let {\mathbb  {N}}=\{1,2,...\} be the set of the natural numbers and {\mathbb  {A}}=\{(,),X,|,\$,\rightarrow ,\land ,\lor ,\neg ,\top ,\bot \} an alphabet of symbols.
{\mathbb  {A}}^{\star } is the set of strings on this alphabet. For example (\top \land \bot ),(\neg \land ,X((\in {\mathbb  {A}}^{\star }.
We have now to define the set of the "well formed formula" FORM, that is the set of the elements of the L.P.C.
Definition (well formed formulas). FORM\subset {\mathbb  {A}}^{\star } is defined with some conditions:

  1. \top ,\bot \in FORM
  2. \forall n\in {\mathbb  {N}}
    \qquad X||...|\$\in FORM, where | is taken n times. For example: X|\$,X||\$,X|||\$,....\in FORM
  3. if \alpha ,\beta \in form, then (\neg \alpha )\in FORM.
  4. if \alpha ,\beta \in form, then (\alpha \land \beta )\in FORM.
  5. if \alpha ,\beta \in form, then (\alpha \lor \beta )\in FORM.
  6. if \alpha ,\beta \in form, then (\alpha \rightarrow \beta )\in FORM.

Well formed formulas is often abbreviated with f.b.f. The strings in condition (2) are called "propositional variables" or "atomic formulas" or "propositional letters" or simply "variables". They are abbreviated with this notation: X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},...,X_{n}(In other books p, q, r, .., are used to refer to variables).
The set of variables is VAR.
VAR\subset FORM
Example of well formed formulas:
(((X_{1}\land X_{2})\lor \top )\rightarrow (X_{1}\lor \bot ))\in FORM
Instead
(X_{1}\land \land )\notin FORM
In this notes we omit (, ) where it is clear the precedence of the connectives. (Connectives are \neg ,\land ,\lor ,\rightarrow ,\bot ,\top )
Why don't we use directly X_{1},X_{2},... or p,q,r,s,...?
Because it is important that the alphabet is a finited set. Although, in this notes, we use X_{1},X_{2},...,notation. It is essential, even, that the L.P.C. language is decidable, that is it must exist an algorithm that tell us if a string is \in FORM or not. For this reason it is crucial the
Unique readability of well formed formulas. For all \alpha \in FORMone (and only one) of the following sentences must be true:

  1. \alpha =\bot or \alpha =\top but not both.
  2. Exists an unique n\in {\mathbb  {N}} such that \alpha =X_{n}.
  3. Exists an unique \beta \in FORM such that \alpha =(\neg \beta ).
  4. Exist unique \beta ,\gamma \in FORM such that \alpha =(\beta \land \gamma ).
  5. Exist unique \beta ,\gamma \in FORM such that \alpha =(\beta \lor \gamma ).
  6. Exist unique \beta ,\gamma \in FORM such that \alpha =(\beta \rightarrow \gamma ).

Let's, infact, consider the parser of the algorithm we talked above: When it find, for example, \neg (\alpha \land \beta ), to decide if the string belongs to FORM, it have to decide (for the unique readability of well formed formulas) if \alpha \land \beta \in FORM. But how can it do this? Deciding if \alpha \in FORM and \beta \in FORM. This is what the above theorem tell us. Try to draw the parser tree. It is unique thanks to, again, that theorem.

Formally, a string \alpha is a finite sequence of elements: \alpha =s_{1}s_{2}...s_{n},s_{i}\in {\mathbb  {A}},i\in \{1,..,n\}
A substring of \alpha is a string in the form s_{i}s_{{i+1}}...s_{{i+j}}, where j\in \{0,1,..,n\} and i+j\leq n.
A subformula is a substring \in FORM.
For example: \alpha =(X_{1}\land X_{2})\rightarrow \top
\beta =(X_{1}\land \qquad \gamma =(X_{1}\land X_{2})
\beta ,\gamma are both substring of \alpha but only \gamma is a subformula. With Var(\alpha ) we indicate the set of variables that are subformulas of \alpha . With \alpha (X_{1},X_{2},..,X_{n}) we denote a formula whose variables are a subset of \{X_{1},X_{2},..,X_{n}\}.

Semantic

The semantic of a language is the relation between the elements of that language and their meaning.
The set {0,1} is called truth values set. 0 means false and 1 means true. Definition(Assignment). An atomic assignment is any function
\mu _{0}:Var\rightarrow \{0,1\}.
An assignment (or interpretation) is a function
\mu :FORM\rightarrow \{0,1\}
that extends \mu _{0} and respects the following rules for every \alpha ,\beta \in FORM.

  1. \mu (\bot )=0 and \mu (\top )=1
  2. \mu ((\neg \alpha ))={\begin{cases}1&if\quad \mu (\alpha )=0\\0&if\quad \mu (\alpha )=1\end{cases}}
  3. \mu ((\alpha \land \beta ))={\begin{cases}1&if\quad \mu (\alpha )=1\quad and\quad \mu (\beta )=1\\0&else\end{cases}}
  4. \mu ((\alpha \lor \beta ))={\begin{cases}1&if\quad \mu (\alpha )=1\quad or\quad \mu (\beta )=1\quad or\quad both\\0&else\end{cases}}
  5. \mu ((\alpha \rightarrow \beta ))={\begin{cases}0&if\quad \mu (\alpha )=0\quad and\quad \mu (\beta )=0\\1&else\end{cases}}

Informally we can say that the variables represent propositions with one verb and one or more complement. For example:
X_{1}= "It rains";
X_{2}= "I go to school".
\neg X_{2}= "I don't go to school"
X_{1}\land X_{2}= "It rains and I go to school"
X_{1}\lor X_{2}= "it rains or I go to school"
X_{1}\rightarrow X_{2}= "If it rains I will go to school"
I can choose \mu _{0} such as \mu _{0}(X_{1})=1 and \mu _{0}(X_{2})=0
Consequently we have
\mu (\neg X_{2})=1\quad \mu (X_{1}\land X_{2})=0\quad \mu (X_{1}\lor X_{2})=1\quad \mu (X_{1}\rightarrow X_{2})=0

Proposition (Inique extendibility of atomic assignment): Every atomic assignment \mu _{0}:Var\rightarrow \{0,1\} admits exactly one extension to an assignment \mu :FORM\rightarrow \{0,1\}

More informally, as you can see in the example above, when we choose the values of the variables we determinate the values of the formulas within those variables.

Definition (truth and falsehood). Let \alpha \in FORM. When we have \mu (\alpha )=1 we say that \alpha is true in the interpretation of \mu , or \mu is a model of \alpha . Instead, when we have \mu (\alpha )=0 we say that \alpha is false in the interpretation of \mu , or \mu is an anti-model of \alpha .
In symbols:
\mu \models \alpha when \mu (\alpha )=1
\mu \not \models \alpha when \mu (\alpha )=0.
When \alpha is true for every \mu we say that \alpha is a tautology. Instead when we have \alpha false for every assignment \mu we say that \alpha is a contradiction. When exists a \mu such as \mu (\alpha )=1 we say that \alpha is satisfiable; instead when exists a \mu such as \mu (\alpha )=0 we say that \alpha is refutable.
In symbols:
\models \alpha tautology
\not \models \alpha refutable

In these notes we abbreviate
((\alpha \to \beta )\land (\beta \to \alpha ))
with
(\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta )
and it can be read like "if and only if".