DEBRE MARKOS UNIVERSITY

BURIE CAMPUS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
Name Id no
Aragaw Dagnew TER/193/11
Esubalew Gebrie TER/214/11
Abebe Alem TER/182/11
Awoke Mehari TER/197/11
Endalew Worku TER/212/11
Anduamlak Temesgen TER/268/12

SUBMITED TO :- TEACHER MEWIDED.Y

SUBMISSION DATE 22/10/13 E.C

1
 Chapter four
Introduction to other logic .
 Modal logic,syntax of modal logic
 Fuzzy logic
 Intuitionistic logic
 Lukasiewicz logic
 Probabilistic logic
1. Modal logic
 Modal logic is the study of modal propositions and the logical relationships that they
bear to one another. The most well-known modal propositions are propositions about
what is necessarily the case and what is possibly the case. For example, the following
are all modal propositions:
 It is possible that it will rain tomorrow.
 It is possible for humans to travel to Mars.
 It is not possible that: every person is mortal, Socrates is a person, and Socrates
is not mortal.
 It is necessary that either it is raining here now or it is not raining here now.
 A proposition p is not possible if and only if the negation of p is necessary.

The operators it is possible that and it is necessary that are called ‘modal’ operators, because
they specify a way or mode in which the rest of the proposition can be said to be true

Modal languages are simple yet expressive languages for talking

about relational structures
• modal languages provide an internal, local perspective on relational structures
• modal languages are not isolated formal systems
– languages: modal vs classical (FOL,SOL), internal vs external perspective
– relational structures vs Boolean algebra with operators

Basic Modal Logic—Syntax

• alphabet
– a set of atomic propositional variables Φ0 = {p1, p2, · · ·}

2
– primitive logical symbols: ⊥(contradiction), ¬ (negation),
∧(conjunction), ♦ (possibility modality)
– defined logical symbols: >(tautology), ∨(disjunction),
⊃(material implication), ≡ (equivalence), (necessity
modality)
– auxiliary symbols: (, )
• well-formed formulas (wff):
– any atomic propositional variable is a wff
– ⊥is a wff
– if ϕ and ψ are wffs, so are :¬ϕ, ♦ϕ, and ϕ ∧ ψ

In logic, syntax is anything having to do with formal languages or formal systems without regard
to any interpretation or meaning given to them. Syntax is concerned with the rules used for
constructing, or transforming the symbols and words of a language, as contrasted with
the semantics of a language which is concerned with its meaning.
The symbols, formulas, systems, theorems, proofs, and interpretations expressed in formal
languages are syntactic entities whose properties may be studied without regard to any
meaning they may be given, and, in fact, need not be given any.
Syntax is usually associated with the rules (or grammar) governing the composition of texts in a
formal language that constitute the well-formed formulas of a formal system.
In computer science, the term syntax refers to the rules governing the composition of well-
formed expressions in a programming language. As in mathematical logic, it is independent of
semantics and interpretation.

Basic Modal Logic—Syntax

• abbreviations:
1. >: ¬⊥
2. ϕ ∨ ψ: ¬ (¬ϕ ∧ ¬ψ)
3. ϕ ⊃ ψ: ¬ϕ ∨ ψ
4. ϕ ≡ ψ: (ϕ ⊃ ψ) ∧(ψ ⊃ ϕ)
5. ϕ: ¬♦¬ϕ

3
What is fuzzy logic?
Fuzzy logic is an approach to computing based on "degrees of truth" rather than the
usual "true or false" (1 or 0) Boolean logic on which the modern computer is based.

The restriction of classical propositional calculus to a two-valued logic has created many
interesting paradoxes over the ages.

For example, the Barber of Seville is a classic paradox (also termed Russell’s barber). In the
small Spanish town of Seville, there is a rule that all and only those men who do not shave
themselves are shaved by the barber. Who shaves the barber?

Another example comes from ancient Greece. Does the liar from Crete lie when he claims, ‘‘All
Cretians are liars?’’ If he is telling the truth, his statement is false. But if his statement is false,
he is not telling the truth. A simpler form of this paradox is the two-word proposition, ‘‘I lie.’’

The statement can not be both true and false.

A fuzzy logic proposition, P∼ , is a statement involving some concept without clearly defined
boundaries.

Most natural language is fuzzy, in that it involves vague and imprecise terms. Statements
describing a person’s height or weight or assessments of people’s preferences about colors or
menus can be used as examples of fuzzy propositions.

The truth value assigned to P∼ can be any value on the interval [0, 1]. The assignment of the
truth value to a proposition is actually a mapping from the interval [0, 1] to the universe U of
truth values, T , as indicated

The logical connectives of negation, disjunction, conjunction, and implication are also defined
for a fuzzy logic.

A fuzzy set A˜A~ in the universe of information UU can be defined as a set of ordered
pairs and it can be represented mathematically as −
A˜={(y,μA˜(y))|y∈U}A~={(y,μA~(y))|y∈U}

4
Here μA˜(y)μA~(y) = degree of membership of yy in \widetilde{A}, assumes values in
the range from 0 to 1, i.e., μA˜(y)∈[0,1]μA~(y)∈[0,1].

Representation of fuzzy set

Let us now consider two cases of universe of information and understand how a fuzzy
set can be represented.
Case 1
When universe of information UU is discrete and finite −
A˜={μA˜(y1)y1+μA˜(y2)y2+μA˜(y3)y3+...}A~={μA~(y1)y1+μA~(y2)y2+μA~(y3)y3+...}

={∑ni=1μA˜(yi)yi}={∑i=1nμA~(yi)yi}
Case 2
When universe of information UU is continuous and infinite −
A˜={∫μA˜(y)y}A~={∫μA~(y)y}
In the above representation, the summation symbol represents the collection of each
element.

Operations on Fuzzy Sets

Having two fuzzy sets A˜A~ and B˜B~, the universe of information UU and an element
𝑦 of the universe, the following relations express the union, intersection and
complement operation on fuzzy sets.

Fuzzy logic applications

Various types of AI systems and technologies use fuzzy logic. This includes vehicle
intelligence, consumer electronics, medicine, software, chemicals and aerospace.

5
Representation of fuzzy set
Let us now consider two cases of universe of information and understand how a fuzzy
set can be represented.
Case 1
When universe of information UU is discrete and finite −
A˜={μA˜(y1)y1+μA˜(y2)y2+μA˜(y3)y3+...}A~={μA~(y1)y1+μA~(y2)y2+μA~(y3)y3+...}

={∑ni=1μA˜(yi)yi}={∑i=1nμA~(yi)yi}
Case 2
When universe of information UU is continuous and infinite −
A˜={∫μA˜(y)y}A~={∫μA~(y)y}
In the above representation, the summation symbol represents the collection of each
element.

Operations on Fuzzy Sets

Having two fuzzy sets A˜A~ and B˜B~, the universe of information UU and an element
𝑦 of the universe, the following relations express the union, intersection and
complement operation on fuzzy sets.

6
I

7
3.NTUITIONISTIC LOGIC:

Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, is a system

of symbolic logic that differs from classical logic by replacing the traditional
concept of truth with the concept of constructive. For example, in classical
logic, propositional formulae are always assigned a truth value from the two
element set of trivial propositions ("true" and "false" respectively)
regardless of whether we have direct evidence for either case. In contrast,
propositional formulae in intuitionistic logic are not assigned any definite truth
value at all and instead only considered "true" when we have direct evidence,
hence proof. (We can also say, instead of the propositional formula being "true"
due to direct evidence, that it is inhabited by a proof in the Curry–Howard sense.)
Operations in intuitionistic logic therefore preserve justification, with respect to
evidence and provability, rather than truth-valuation.

Intuitionistic logic was developed because mathematicians working at the turn of

the century thought that the foundations of their subject were not secure. The
basis for these thoughts came with problems in set theory like the Cantor
paradox. This can be briefly described as follows. If A is a set then the size of the
set is given by its cardinal number A = , which is the set of all sets which have the
same number of elements as A (or more precisely whose elements can be put
into a one-one correspondence with those of A). Let A = ≤ B = , for two sets A and
B, mean that A has the same cardinality as a sub-set of B. Then, by a result of
Cantor's, for any set A and its powerset P(A) we have A = · P(A) ==== . Now, let U
be the set of all sets, i.e. the universal set. Then, by definition P(U) z U so P(U)
==== ≤ U = . But, by Cantor's result we have U= < P(U) ==== , which gives a
contradiction. This is Cantor's paradox

8
. Intuitionistic logic encompasses the general principles of logical reasoning which
have been abstracted by logicians from intuitionistic mathematics

 Intuitionistic implication
 The intuitionistic implication (A ⇒ B) is considered by to be true if there exists
a method by which a proof of B can be deduced from the proof of A. In the
case of the implication (¬∀x ¬A(x)) ⇒ ∃xA(x)) there is no general method
which, from a proof of the sentence (¬∀x ¬A(x)), permits is to obtain an
intuitionistic proof of the sentence ∃xA(x), i.e. to 2construct a number n such
that A(n) holds, hence we can’t accept it as an intuitionistic theorem or
tautology.
Intuitionistic negation
 The negation and the disjunction are also understood differently. The
sentence ¬A is considered intuitionistically true if the acceptance of the
sentence A leads to absurdity. As a result of above understanding of negation
and implication we have that in the intuitionistic logic I `I (A ⇒ ¬¬A) but 6 `I
(¬¬A ⇒ A). Consequently, in any intuitionistic model I, |=I (A ⇒ ¬¬A) and 6 |=I
(¬¬A ⇒ A
Intuitionistic disjunction
The intuitionist regards a disjunction (A ∪ B) as true if one of the sentences A, B is
true and there is a method by which it is possible to find out which of them is
true. As a consequence a classical law of excluded middle (A ∪ ¬A) is not
acceptable by the intuitionists since there is no general method of finding out, for
any given sentence A, whether A or ¬A is true

9
4 . Lukasiewicz Logic

10
 The
propositional connectives of Łukasiewicz logic are implication , negation , equivalence
, weak conjunction , strong conjunction , weak disjunction , strong disjunction , and
propositional constants and . The presence of weak and strong conjunction and disjunction is
a common feature of substructural logics without the rule of contraction, to which Łukasiewicz
logic belongs.

The original system of axioms for propositional infinite-valued Łukasiewicz logic used
implication and negation as the primitive connectives:

11
Propositional infinite-valued Łukasiewicz logic can also be axiomatized by adding the following
axioms to the axiomatic system of monoidal t-norm logic:

 Divisibility:
 Double negation:

That is, infinite-valued Łukasiewicz logic arises by adding the axiom of double negation to basic
t-norm logic BL, or by adding the axiom of divisibility to the logic IMTL.

Finite-valued Łukasiewicz logics require additional axioms.

5.Probabilistic logic
Probabilistic reasoning is a way of knowledge representation where we apply the concept
of probability to indicate the uncertainty in knowledge. In probabilistic reasoning, we
combine probability theory with logic to handle the uncertainty.

The aim of a probabilistic logic (also probability logic and probabilistic reasoning) is to combine
the capacity of probability theory to handle uncertainty with the capacity of deductive logic to
exploit structure. The result is a richer and more expressive formalism with a broad range of
possible application areas.

Probabilistic logics attempt to find a natural extension of traditional logic truth tables: the results
they define are derived through probabilistic expressions instead. A difficulty with probabilistic
logics is that they tend to multiply the computational complexities of their probabilistic and
logical components.

Other difficulties include the possibility of counter-intuitive results, such as those of Dempster-
Shafer theory. The need to deal with a broad variety of contexts and issues has led to many
different proposals.

12
 Probabilistic logic (also probability logic and probabilistic reasoning) involves the use of
probability and logic to deal with uncertain situations. The result is a richer and more expressive
formalism with a broad range of possible application areas.

Probabilistic logics attempt to find a natural extension of traditional logic truth tables: the results
they define are derived through probabilistic expressions instead.

A difficulty with probabilistic logics is that they tend to multiply the computational complexities of
their probabilistic and logical components.

Other difficulties include the possibility of counter-intuitive results, such as those of Dempster–
Shafer theory in evidence-based subjective logic. The need to deal with a broad variety of
contexts and issues has led to many different proposals.

APPLICATIONS:

 Argumentation theory
 Artificial intelligence
 Artificial general intelligence
 Bioinformatics
 Formal epistemology
 Game theory
 Philosophy of science
 Psychology
 Statistics

13
14