1 / 30

CS2013 Mathematics for Computing Science Adam Wyner University of Aberdeen Computing Science

CS2013 Mathematics for Computing Science Adam Wyner University of Aberdeen Computing Science. Slides adapted from Michael P. Frank ' s course based on the text Discrete Mathematics & Its Applications (5 th Edition) by Kenneth H. Rosen. Proof – Natural Deduction. Topics.

anakin
Download Presentation

CS2013 Mathematics for Computing Science Adam Wyner University of Aberdeen Computing Science

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CS2013Mathematics for Computing ScienceAdam WynerUniversity of AberdeenComputing Science Slides adapted from Michael P. Frank's course based on the textDiscrete Mathematics & Its Applications(5th Edition)by Kenneth H. Rosen

  2. Proof – Natural Deduction

  3. Topics • What is proofand why? • How with rules and examples • Proof strategies – direct, contrapositive, and contradiction. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  4. Nature of Proofs • In mathematics and logic, a proof is: • An argument (sequence of statements) that rigorously (systematically, formally) establishes the truth of a statement given premises and rules. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  5. Importance of Proofs • Given a specification of some domain (facts and rule) • What can be inferred? • Are there any contradictions? • Are there undesirable inferences? • Do we have all the consequences? Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  6. Symbolic Reasoning • Start with some logical formulas that you want to use in your proof (premises and rules) • Identify what you want to prove (a conclusion) • Use reasoning templates and equivalences to transform formulas from your start formulas till you get what you want to prove. • Skill in knowing the templates and equivalences. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  7. Proofs in Programming • Applies in program verification, computer security, automated reasoning systems, parsing, etc. • Allows us to be confident about the correctness of a specification. • Discovers flaws (e.g., a reason why the program is not correct or not accurate). • Not doing proofs of programming (yet). • Oracle Policy Modelling proves determinations from input information. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  8. Deductive Calculi • There exist various precise calculi for proving theorems in logic. For example • Natural Deduction • Axiomatic approaches • Semantic tableaus ("proof in trees") • Look at Natural Deduction, which is characterised by the use of inference rules. • Look at Axiomatic proof, which is characterised by the use of axioms to substitute expressions. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  9. Proof Terminology • Premises • statements that are often unproven and assumed. • Conclusion • a statement that follows from premises and an inference rule • Rules of inference • Patterns of reasoning from premises to conclusions. • Theorem • A statement that has been proven to be true. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  10. More Proof Terminology • Lemma • a minor theorem used as a stepping-stone to proving a major theorem. • Corollary • a minor theorem proved as an easy consequence of a major theorem. • Conjecture • a statement whose truth value has not been proven, but may be believed to be true. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  11. Inference Rules - General Form • An Inference Rule is • A reasoning pattern (template) such that if we know (accept, agree, believe) that a set of premises are all true, then we deduce (infer) that a certain conclusion statement must also be true. • premise 1 premise 2 …  conclusion “” means “therefore” Different forms, names, etc to present this.... Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  12. Inference Rules 1 • Double negative elimination (DNE) • From ¬ ¬ φ, we infer φ • From "It is not the case that Bill is not happy", we infer "Bill is happy". • Conjunction introduction (CI) • From φand ψ, we infer ( φ∧ψ ). • From "Bill is happy" and "Jill is happy", we infer "Bill is happy and Jill is happy". order of conjunction and disjunction does not matter. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  13. Inference Rules 2 • Conjunction elimination (CE) • From ( φ∧ψ ), we infer φ and ψ • From "Bill is happy and Jill is happy", we infer "Bill is happy" (and also "Jill is happy"). • Disjunction introduction (DI) • From φ, we infer (φ∨ψ). • From "Bill is happy", we infer "Bill is happy or Jill is happy". Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  14. Inference Rules 3 • Disjunction elimination (DE) • From ¬ φ and (φ∨ψ), we infer ψ • From "Bill is not happy" and "Bill is happy or Jill is happy", we infer "Jill is happy". • Implication elimination (Modus ponens – MP) • From φ and ( φψ ), we infer ψ. • From "Bill is happy" and "If Bill is happy, then Jill is happy", we infer "Jill is happy". Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  15. Inference Rules 4 • Implication elimination (Modus tollens- MT) • From ¬ ψ and ( φψ ), we infer ¬ φ. • From "Bill is not happy" and "If Bill is happy, then Jill is happy", we infer "Jill is not happy". • Hypothetical syllogism (HS) • ( φψ ) and (ψ β ), we infer (φ β ) • From "If Bill is happy, then Jill is happy" and "If Jill is happy, then Mary is happy", we infer "If Bill is happy, then Mary is happy". Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  16. Inference Rules - Tautologies • Each valid logical inference rule corresponds to an implication that is a tautology. • From premise 1, premise 2 …, it follows conclusion • Corresponding tautology: ((premise 1)  (premise 2)  …) conclusion • Demonstrate with a T-table. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  17. Modus Ponens T-table Proof that the reasoning template is a tautology. Other reasoning templates can be demonstrated similarly. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  18. Validity and truth • We say that a proof method is valid if it can never lead from true premises to a false conclusion. • You see a valid proof, one of whose premises is false.  Conclusion may be true of false. • You see an invalid proof.  Conclusion may be true of false. • You see a valid proof, whose premises are true  Conclusion must be true Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  19. Fallacies • Afallacy is an inference rule or other proof method that may yield a false conclusion. • Fallacy of affirming the conclusion: • “pq is true, and q is true, so p must be true.” (No, because FT is true.) • Fallacy of denying the hypothesis: • “pq is true, and p is false, so q must be false.” (No, again because FT is true.) Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  20. "Invalid" Reasoning Patterns • Argumentation templates used in everyday reasoning: • Bill is in a position to know whether or not Jill is happy. • Bill asserts "Jill is happy". • Therefore, Jill is happy. • Problem is that being in a position to know something and asserting it is so does not make it so. Bill might be mistaken. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  21. Completeness of inference rules • See handout for a complete set of rules that can prove all theorems. • However, there may be different systems that are not complete. There are issues similar to the expressivity of the logical connectives and quantifiers. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  22. Formal Proofs • A formal proof of a conclusion C, given premises p1, p2,…,pnconsists of a finite sequence of steps, each of which is either a premise or applies some inference rule to premises or previously-proven statements to yield a new statement (the conclusion). Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  23. Method of Proof • Write down premises. • Write down what is to be shown. • Use a proof strategy. • Apply natural deduction rules. • Write down the result of applying the rule to the premise(s). Make a note of what rule is applied and what premises are used. • Reapply 2-5 until have shown the result. • Record result on line 2. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  24. Super Simple Example Problem: Prove that p implies p ∨ q • p Premise. • Show: p ∨ qDirect derivation, 3 • p ∨ q Disjunction introduction, 1 Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  25. Pretty Simple Example Problem: Prove that p and (p ∨q)  s imply s • p Premise • (p ∨ q)  s Premise • Show: s Direct derivation, 5 • p ∨ q Disjunction introduction, 1 • s Implication elimination, 2 and 3 Have to think ahead. Tricky with long chains of reasoning. Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  26. Longer Example 1. (p ∧ q)  r Premise 2. Show: (p (q  r)) CD 3,4 3. p Assumption 4. Show: q  r CD 4,5 • q Assumption 6. Show: r ID 10 7. ¬ r Assumption 8 (p ∧ q) CI 3,5 9. r MP 1,8 10. ¬ r ∧ r ContraI 7,9 Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  27. A Direct Proof 1. ((A ∨ ¬ B) ∨ C)(D (E F)) 2. (A ∨ ¬ B)((F G)H) 3. A  ((EF)(FG)) 4. A 5. Show: D  H 6. A ∨ ¬ B 7. (A ∨ ¬ B) ∨ C 8. (D  (E F)) 9. (E F) (F G) 10. D (F G) 11. (F G) H 12. DH Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  28. A Conditional Proof 1. (A ∨ B)(C ∧ D) 2. (D ∨ E)F 3. Show: A  F 4. A 5. Show: F 6. A ∨ B 7. C ∧ D 8. D 9. (D ∨ E) 10. F Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  29. An Indirect Proof 1. A (B ∧ C) 2. (B ∨ D)E 3. (D ∨ A) 3. Show: E 4. ¬ E 5. ¬ (B ∨ D) 6. ¬ B ∧¬ D 7. ¬ D 8. A 9. B ∧C 10. B 11. ¬ B 12. B ∧¬ B Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

  30. Next • Proofs using logical equivalences • Quantifier proof rules • Other proof strategies • contrapositive • cases Frank / van Deemter / Wyner

More Related