Homework assignment for chapters 8 and 9 in Russell & Norvig

1. Modified from 8.7 on page 269: Represent the sentence All Germans speak the same languages in predicate calculus. Use Speaks(x,l), meaning that person x speaks language l, and German(y), meaning that y is a German person. Here are some correct answers that I encountered: x , y , l German x German y Speaks x , l Speaks y , l x , y German x German y l Speaks x , l Speaks y , l
x ,l

Its good practice to try to put all of these into English. You should also try to reduce these to CNF to convince yourself that they are actually all equivalent. (I chose the variables such that you do not need to rename to make the sentences equivalent.) Here are some incorrect answers that I encountered, and what they mean: x l German x Speaks x , l x , y l German x Speaks x , l German y Speaks y , l

x Speaks x , l y German y Speaks y , l l x German x Speaks x , l y German y Speaks y , l

German

x , y German x German y l Speaks x , l Speaks y , l These can all be interpreted as there exists a language that all Germans speak. This is wrong because it leaves open the possibility that there are languages spoken by some Germans that are not spoken by others. Although this sounds plausible, it is not the sentence that was asked for. A very common mistake with propositional logic is to read too much into what is being asked for. The sentence that you were asked to represent allows for the possibility that all Germans speak Japanese and Chinese while none of them speak German. It is also useful to convert these three sentences to CNF to verify that they are exactly identical. x , l German x Speaks x , l y German y Speaks y , l This says that if there exists a German who speaks a language, then all Germans speak that language. This sounds reasonable at first, but it is incorrect as it only works if all Germans speak zero or one language. Its extremely important to understand why this is incorrect as it is an easy trap to fall into. Think about it in a very simple world with two Germans (Hans und Franz), and three languages (German, French, and Spanish). If Hans speaks German and French, and Franz speaks German and Spanish, then it is true that there exists a German (say Hans) and a language (say German) such that German(Hans) and Speaks(Hans, German) implies that all Germans speak German. This world therefore satisfies this statement, but does not satisfy the sentence that all Germans speak the same languages. x , y , l , m German x German y Speaks x , l Speaks y , m l =m This says that all Germans who speak, speak only one language. This is wrong because it ignores the possibility that all Germans speak more than one language as well as allowing for Germans who dont speak a language at all. x , l German x Speaks x , l

At first, this would seem to imply that all Germans speak all languages. However, this is even stronger this sentence implies that all Germans speak everything, including themselves! (Personally, Im not sure how one speaks Ben.) Credit was only given for correct answers. For those getting no marks, 16 points are available to those who reduce the four correct sentences and three similar incorrect sentences to CNF. CNF means no existential qualifiers. You must show your work to get this credit. 2. What axiom is needed to infer the fact Sister(Laura, Jim) given the facts Male(Jim), Female(Laura), Father(John, Jim), Father(John, Laura), Mother(Luann, Laura), and Mother(Luann, Jim)? (Jim, John, Laura, and Luann are constants) Heres the simplest correct answer: x , y Female x z Father z , x Father z , y w Mother w , x Mother w , y Sister x , y Full marks (20 points) were given for any correct answers, even those that were ludicrously strong. 3. Modified from 8.10 on page 269: Rewrite the propositional wumpus world facts from Section 7.7 into first-order logic.

Many students added lots of other useful facts, but these were the rules we were interested in.

[ x , y ] , [ a , b ] [ a , b ] { [ x1, y ] , [ x1, y ] , [ x , y1 ] , [ x , y1 ] } [ x , y ],[a ,b ] Pit [ x , y ] Adjacent [ x , y ] , [ a , b ] Breezy [ a , b ] [ x , y ] , [ a , b ] Wumpus [ x , y ] Adjacent [ x , y ] , [ a , b ] Stench [ a , b ] [ x , y ] Wumpus [ x , y ] [ x , y ] , [ a , b ] Wumpus [ x , y ] [ x , y ] [ a , b ] Wumpus [ a , b ]

[ x , y ] , [ a , b ] Adjacent

Full marks (20 points) were given for answers that seemed reasonable. Answers that only approached being reasonable were given 16 points. Answers that were omitted or showed no significant thought received no points. 9.4 on page 316: For each pair of atomic sentences, give the most general unifier if it exists: a. P(a,b,b), P(x, y, z). { x / a , y /b , z /b } b. Q(y, G(a, b)), Q(G(x, x), y). { a / x , b / x , y /G x , x } c. Older(Father(y), y), Older(Father(x), John). { y / John , x / John } d. Knows(Father(y), y), Knows(x, x). fail Full marks (5 points) were given for any correct answers that produced the most general unifier, or indicated failure on part d. 4 points were awarded for answers that incorrectly produced the most general unifier, for example, by replacing Father(y) with Father(John) instead of by replacing y with John the ends dont completely justify the means. 4

points were also awarded on part b if the assumption was made that the two ys were meant to be different variables and hence should be standardized apart. 4. 9.17 on page 318: How can resolution be used to show that a sentence is valid? Unsatisfiable? If we cannot resolve the negation of the sentence with an empty knowledge base, then the sentence is valid. Using the resolution algorithm, this means that if we can resolve the sentence (i.e., the negation of the negation of the sentence) to true (i.e., the empty statement), then the sentence is valid. For example, p p can be resolved to true, so it is valid i.e., a tautology. If we cannot resolve the sentence with an empty knowledge base, the sentence is unsatisfiable. Using the resolution algorithm, this means that if we can resolve the negation of the sentence to true, then the sentence is unsatisfiable. For example, the negation of p p , i.e. p p = p p , can be resolved to true, so p p is unsatisfiable. For full marks (10 points each on valid/unsatisfiable) on this question, the student should demonstrate that they understand what valid and unsatisfiable mean, and how resolution works. Repeating phrases from the book do not demonstrate this. For example, what does it mean to derive a contradiction? 8 out of 10 points were awarded if it was felt that the student might have been able to produce the answer if they had been asked to explain themselves in more detail. No points were awarded for untrue statements, e.g., that if a sentence is not unsatisfiable, it must be valid.