Logic for Computer Science

COT 3541
KIAVASH BAHREINI, PH.D.
ASSOCIATE TEACHING PROFESSOR
KNIGHT FOUNDATION SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCES (KFSCIS)
SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCES (SCIS)
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY (FIU)

Module 7
Content
• Decomposing formulas into sets of literals
• Semantic Tableaux
• Construction of semantic tableaux
• Termination of semantic tableaux
• Exercises
Semantic tableaux

Introduction
• It is an efficient decision procedure method for satisfiability in propositional logic.
• It is used to prove important theorems about deductive systems.

The principle behind semantic tableaux

• Search for a model (satisfying interpretation) by decomposing the formula into sets of atoms and negations
of atoms.
• A set of atoms and negations of atoms is satisfiable iff the set does not contain an atom p and its negation
¬p.

• The formula is satisfiable iff one of these sets is satisfiable.

Decomposing formulas into sets of
literals

Definition
• A literal is an atom or the negation of an atom.
• An atom is a positive literal, and the negation is a negative literal.
• For any atom p
• Set {p, ¬p} is a complementary pair of literals.
• For any formula A
• Set {A, ¬A} is a complementary pair of formulas.
Decomposing formulas into sets of
literals

Example
• q and r are positive literals and ¬p and ¬r are negative literals in the set of literals {¬p, q,
r, ¬r}. This set contains the complementary pair of literals {r, ¬r}.
Decomposing formulas into sets of
literals
Example
• Analyze the satisfiability of the formula:
• A = p ^ (¬q ∨ ¬p)
• In an arbitrary interpretation I using the indictive rules for the evaluation of the truth value of a formula.
• Step 1: The principal operator of A is a conjunction, so vI (A) = T if and only if both vI (p) = T and vI (¬q ∨¬p) = T.
• Step 2: The principal operator of ¬q ∨ ¬p is disjunction, so vI (¬q ∨¬p) = T if and only if either vI (¬q) = T or vI (¬p) = T.
• Step 3: Integrating the information we have obtained from this analysis, we conclude that
• vI (A) = T if and only if either:
• 1. vI (p) = T and vI (¬q) = T , or
• 2. vI (p) = T and vI (¬p) = T.

• Result: A is satisfiable if and only if there is an interpretation such that (1) holds or an interpretation such that (2) holds.

• Conclusion: We have reduced the question of the satisfiability of A to a question about the satisfiability of sets of literals.
 Decomposing formulas into sets of
literals

Theorem 1: A set of literals is satisfiable if and only if it does not contain

a complementary pair of literals.
Proof: Let L be a set of literals that does not contain a complementary
pair. Define the interpretation I by:
• I(p) = T if p ∈ L,
• I(p) = F if ¬p ∈ L.
The interpretation is well-defined—there is only one value assigned to each
atom in L--since there is no complementary pair of literals in L. Each literal
in L evaluates to T, so L is satisfiable.
Conversely, if {p, ¬p} ⊆ L, then for any interpretation I for the atoms in L,
either vI (p) = F or vI (¬p) = F, so L is not satisfiable.
Decomposing formulas into sets of
literals

Example:
• Continuing the analysis of the formula A = p∧(¬q∨¬p) from the
previous example, A is satisfiable if and only at least one of the
sets {p, ¬p} and {p, ¬q} does not contain a complementary pair
of literals.
• Clearly, only the second set does not contain a complementary
pair of literals. Using the method described in Theorem 1, we
obtain the interpretation:
• I(p) = T, I(q) = F.
• Can you check that vI (A) = T for this interpretation?
Decomposing formulas into sets of
literals
The following example shows what happens if a formula is unsatisfiable.

Example:
• Consider the formula: B = (p ∨ q) ∧ (¬p ∧ ¬q).

• The analysis of the formula proceeds as follows:

• vI (B) = T if and only if vI (p ∨ q) = T and vI (¬p∧¬q) = T .

• Decomposing the conjunction, vI (B)=T if and only if vI (p ∨ q) = T and vI (¬p) = vI (¬q) = T.

• Decomposing the disjunction, vI (B) = T if and only if either:

• 1. vI (p) = vI (¬p) = vI (¬q) = T , or
• 2. vI (q) = vI (¬p) = vI (¬q) = T.

• Both sets of literals {p, ¬p, ¬q} and {q, ¬p, ¬q} contain complementary pairs, so by Theorem 1,
both sets of literals are unsatisfiable. We conclude that it is impossible to find a model for B; in other
words, B is unsatisfiable.
 Semantic tableaux

Circled dot X operator

operator
Figure 1.
Construction of semantic tableaux
• The decomposition of a formula into sets of literals is rather difficult to follow when
expressed textually, as we did in the previous examples.

• In the method of semantic tableaux, sets of formulas label nodes of a tree, where
each path in the tree represents the formulas that must be satisfied in one possible
interpretation.

• In semantic tableaux:
• The initial formula labels the root of the tree
• Each node has one or two child nodes depending on how a formula labeling the
node is decomposed
• The leaves are labeled by the sets of literals
• A leaf labeled by a set of literals containing a complementary pair of literals is
marked ×
• While a leaf labeled by a set not containing a complementary pair is marked ⊙
Construction of semantic tableaux
• Figure 1 shows semantic tableaux for the formulas from the examples A and B. The
tableau construction is not unique; here is another tableau for B:
Construction of semantic tableaux
• Let’s compare both semantic tableaux for example B

B
Construction of semantic tableaux
• Classification of α- and β-formulas
Construction of semantic tableaux
• Algorithm 1
• Construction of a semantic tableau
• Input: A formula φ of propositional logic.
• Output: A semantic tableau T for φ all of whose leaves are marked.
Initially, T is a tree with a single root node labeled with the singleton set {φ}. This node is not marked.
Repeat the following step as long as possible: Choose an unmarked leaf l labeled with a set of formulas
U(l) and apply one of the following rules.
• U(l) is a set of literals. Mark the leaf closed × if it contains a complementary pair of literals. If not, mark the leaf open ⊙
• U(l) is not a set of literals. Choose a formula in U(l) that is not a literal.
Classify the formula as an α-formula A or as a β-formula B and perform one of the following steps according to the
classification:
Termination of the Tableau Construction
• Definition 1: A tableau whose construction has terminated is a completed
tableau.

• A completed tableau is closed if all its leaves are marked closed.

• Otherwise (if some leaf is marked open), it is open.

Termination of the Tableau Construction
• Theorem 2: Constructing a tableau for any formula φ terminates.
• When the construction terminates, all the leaves are marked × or ⊙
Exercises
Prove the following logical equivalences using semantic
tableaux:

1. A→B ≡ A↔(A ∧ B),

2. A→B ≡ B ↔(A ∨ B),

3. A ∧ B ≡ (A↔B)↔(A ∨ B),

4. A↔B ≡ (A ∨ B)→(A ∧ B).

Exercises
1. Solution: 1. A→B ≡ A↔(A ∧ B): Refer to Canvas.
Tasks
• Study all modules
• Read the PDF chapters shared with
you
• Read the lecture notes
• Watch the lecture video files
• Do the assignments
 Thank you

Logic for Computer Science

COT 3541
KIAVASH BAHREINI, PH.D.
ASSOCIATE TEACHING PROFESSOR
KNIGHT FOUNDATION SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCES (KFSCIS)
SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCES (SCIS)
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY (FIU)

Module 7