AR for Horn clause logic

AR for Horn clause logic Introducing: Unification

Example: p lot_maint(house(p)) big(house(p)) false lot_maint(house(Bos)) • We would like to conclude: • by means of generalized modus ponens. false  big(house(Bos)) How to deal with variables? Principle: use instantiations of the 2 Horn clauses, such that these DO ‘match’.

related(x,y)  parent(x,y) parent(John,Mary) related(John,Mary) loves(John,x)  related(John,x) related(y,father(y)) loves(John,father(John)) More examples: • We drop the universal quantification, since all variables are universally quantified anyway. • Some examples using standard modus ponens: Unification !!

Substitutions: • Examples:  = {x /g(z),y /B}  ={x /h(g(A)), y /g(A),z /w} • A substitution is a finite set of pairs of the form variable /term, such that all variablesat the left-hand sides of the pairs are distinct. • In our substitutions we will NOT allow that some variable that occurs left also occurs in some term at the right.

Applying substitutions: • Examples: • Substitutions can be applied to simple expressions (atoms or terms), by replacing all occurrences of the left-side variables in the expression by the corresponding terms.  = {x /g(z),y /B} p(x, f(y, z))= p(g(z), f(B, z))  ={x /h(g(A)), y /g(A),z /w} p(x, f(y, z)) =p(h(g(A)), f(g(A),w))

The two atoms in the clauses: • must be made equal. lot_maint(house(p)) big(house(p)) false  lot_maint(house(Bos)) Remember the motivation: • We want substitutions that make atoms equal.

S= {related(John,father(John))} • Given a setof simple expressions S, we call a substitution  a unifier for S if: S  is a singleton “Unifiers” • Example: S = {related(John,x), related(y, father(y))} = {y /John,x /father(John)}is a unifier forS

For deduction step: related(x,y)  parent(x,y) parent(John,z) • and there are several unifiers: = {x /John, y /z} • we have: S = {parent(x,y), parent(John,z)} • Only the most general one, , allows to derive the strongest conclusion: related(John,z) One more refinement:  = {x /John, y /Mary, z / Mary} etc.

Example: S = {parent(x,y), parent(John,z)} S = {parent(John,z)} = {x /John, y /z}  = {x /John, y /Mary, z / Mary} S = {parent(John,Mary)} There exists a third substitution: = {z /Mary} with Relation between these? S  = (S ) 

Given a set of simple expressions S, a most general unifier for S is a unifier for S, such that for all other unifiers  for S, there exists a third substitution  such that: S= (S) Most general unifier: • Key-idea: create minimal instantiation changes! • Notation:  = mgu(S) , or  = mgu(A, B) for S = {A,B}

A  B1  B2  …  Bi …  Bn Bi’  C1  C2  …  Cm (A  B1  B2  … C1  C2  …  Cm …  Bn)  Generalized modus ponens for Horn clauses • Generalized modus ponens must be further extended as: • where  = mgu(Bi,Bi’) • Note: Bi and Bi’ must have the same predicate. • Correctness: due to correctness for all ground instances of this derivation.

false lot_maint(house(x)) lot_maint(house(y))  big(house(y)) false showm(z)  belg(z) showm(Bos) • Another step, much later: false belg(Bos) Example: a few steps false big(house(y)) • Observe: we will always provide the variables with new namesin order to avoid ‘accidental’ clashes of names.

Goal := false  B1  B2  …  Bn; Repeat Select some Bi atom from the body ofGoal Select some clause Bi’  C1  C2  …  Cm from T such that  = mgu(Bi,Bi’) exists Goal:= false  (B1  …  Bi-1  C1  C2  …  Cm  Bi+1  …  Bn) UntilGoal= false  or no more Selections possible Backward procedure for Horn clauses • Again: concrete versions of this generic scheme should allow for backtracking over previous selections, • or they should treat the problem as a general search problem through the space of derivable goals.

showm(Bos) belg(Bos) european(x)  belg(x) rich(x)  showm(x)  european(x) big(house(x))  rich(x) lot_maint(house(x))  big(house(x)) false  lot_maint(house(x)) lot_maint(house(x1))  big(house(x1))  = { x1 / x} big(house(x2))  rich(x2)  = { x2 / x} rich(x3)  showm(x3)  european(x3)  = { x3 / x } european(x4)  belg(x4)  = { x4 / x } belg(Bos)  = { x / Bos } showm(Bos)  = { } The example again: false  lot_maint(house(x)) false  big(house(x)) false  rich(x) false  showm(x)  european(x) false  showm(x)  belg(x) false  showm(Bos) false 

false  p(x) p(y)  q(x,y)  = {x/y} false  q(y,y) false  p(x) p(y)  q(z,y)  = {x/y } false  q(z,y) Why rename variables? • Consider the derivation step: • Problem: p(y)  q(x,y) is equivalent with p(y)  q(z,y) so that alternatively we could perform the step: • Which gives us a strictly stronger conclusion ! • Always first rename variables apart !!

anc(x,y)  parent(x,y)(1) anc(x,y)  parent(x,z)  anc(z,y)(2) parent(A,B)(3)parent(B,C)(4) false  anc(u,v) (2) {u/x1,v/y1} (1) {u/x1,v/y1} false  parent(x1,y1) false  parent(x1,z1)  anc(z1,y1) (3) {x1/A,z1/B} (3) {x1/A,y1/B} false  false  anc(B,y1) (4) {x1/B,y1/C} (1) {x2/B,y2/y1} false  false  parent(B,y1) (4) {y1/C} false  Another example: false  anc(u,v) Several different proofs are possible !

Semi-deciding: • Backward generalized modus ponens, using a complete search method to search the space of derived goals and with renaming of variables is semi-deciding. • Remark that it can only be semi-deciding, because the search space of goals may be infinitely large. • thus, in general, this cannot help us to decide whether false  is derivable.

{u/s(x1)} false  nat(x1) {x1/s(x2)} false  nat(x2) ... An infinite derivation: • Example: nat(s(x))  nat(x) false  nat(u) false  nat(u)

{u/0} {u/s(x1)} false  false  nat(x1) {x1/s(x2)} {x1/0} false  false  nat(x2) ... Using a complete searchwe do get an answer for: • Example: nat(0) nat(s(x))  nat(x) false  nat(u) false  nat(u)

is implied: mgu= {u/point(1,z)} is implied: mgu= {u/y,v/y } Deducing with unification • Example: vertical(segment(point(x,y),point(x,z))) horizontal(segment(point(x,y),point(z,y))) u vertical(segment(point(1,2),u)) u,v horizontal(segment(point(1,u),point(2,v)))

pet(x)  cat(x) pet(x)  dog(x) dog(x)  poodle(x) small(x)  poodle(x) ???? ???? Representation-powerof Horn clauses • Most predicate logic formulae can easily be rewritten in Horn clauses. • Examples: x cat(x)  dog(x)  pet(x) x poodle(x)  dog(x)  small(x) • BUT: x human(x)  male(x)  female(x) x dog(x)  ~abnormal(x)  has_4_legs(x)

AR for Horn clause logic