reasoning for humans clear thinking in an uncertain world
play

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 09, 2023 •220 likes •745 views

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Truth-Value Assignment A truth-value assignment specifies a unique truth-value (either T or F) for

  1. Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org

  2. Truth-Value Assignment A truth-value assignment specifies a unique truth-value (either T or F) for each atomic formula. 1

  3. Consider the formula ( A → ( A ∨ B )). 2

  4. Consider the formula ( A → ( A ∨ B )). The atomic subformulas are A and B 2

  5. Consider the formula ( A → ( A ∨ B )). The atomic subformulas are A and B There are 4 truth-value assignments for this formula: 1. A is T, B is T 2. A is T, B is F 3. A is F, B is T 4. A is F, B is F 2

  6. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 3

  7. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 3

  8. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 How many truth value assignments are there for two atomic propositions A and B ? 3

  9. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 How many truth value assignments are there for two atomic propositions A and B ? 4 3

  10. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 How many truth value assignments are there for two atomic propositions A and B ? 4 How many truth value assignments are there for three atomic propositions A , B , and C ? 3

  11. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 How many truth value assignments are there for two atomic propositions A and B ? 4 How many truth value assignments are there for three atomic propositions A , B , and C ? 8 3

  12. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 How many truth value assignments are there for two atomic propositions A and B ? 4 How many truth value assignments are there for three atomic propositions A , B , and C ? 8 How many truth value assignments are there for four atomic propositions A , B , C and D ? 3

  13. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 How many truth value assignments are there for two atomic propositions A and B ? 4 How many truth value assignments are there for three atomic propositions A , B , and C ? 8 How many truth value assignments are there for four atomic propositions A , B , C and D ? 16 3

  14. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 How many truth value assignments are there for two atomic propositions A and B ? 4 How many truth value assignments are there for three atomic propositions A , B , and C ? 8 How many truth value assignments are there for four atomic propositions A , B , C and D ? 16 How many truth value assignments are there for n atomic propositions A 1 , A 2 , . . . , A n ? 3

  15. How many truth value assignments are there for a single atomic proposition A ? 2 How many truth value assignments are there for two atomic propositions A and B ? 4 How many truth value assignments are there for three atomic propositions A , B , and C ? 8 How many truth value assignments are there for four atomic propositions A , B , C and D ? 16 How many truth value assignments are there for n atomic propositions A 1 , A 2 , . . . , A n ? 2 n 3

  16. Truth Assignments Given a truth assignment for all the atomic propositions in ϕ , how do we determine the truth value of ϕ ? 4

  17. Conjunction Eric had steak and wine. ( S ∧ W ) S W T T T F F T F F 5

  18. Conjunction Eric had steak and wine. ( S ∧ W ) S W T T T F F T F F 5

  19. Conjunction Eric had steak and wine. ( S ∧ W ) S W ( S ∧ W ) T T T T F F F T F F F F 5

  20. Conjunction Eric had steak and wine. ( S ∧ W ) S W ( S ∧ W ) T T T T F F F T F F F F 5

  21. Conjunction Eric had steak and wine. ( S ∧ W ) S W ( S ∧ W ) T T T T F F F T F F F F 5

  22. Conjunction Eric had steak and wine. ( S ∧ W ) S W ( S ∧ W ) T T T T F F F T F F F F 5

  23. Conjunction Eric had steak and wine. ( S ∧ W ) S W ( S ∧ W ) T T T T F F F T F F F F 5

  24. Conjunction Eric had steak and wine. ( S ∧ W ) S W ( S ∧ W ) T T T T F F F T F F F F 5

  25. Truth-Table for Conjunction ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) ϕ ψ T T T T F F F T F F F F 6

  26. Disjunction Eric had steak or wine. ( S ∨ W ) S W ( S ∨ W ) T T T T F T F T T F F F 7

  27. Disjunction Eric had steak or wine. ( S ∨ W ) S W ( S ∨ W ) T T T T F T F T T F F F 7

  28. Disjunction Eric had steak or wine. ( S ∨ W ) S W ( S ∨ W ) T T T T F T F T T F F F 7

  29. Disjunction Eric had steak or wine. ( S ∨ W ) S W ( S ∨ W ) T T T T F T F T T F F F 7

  30. Disjunction Eric had steak or wine. ( S ∨ W ) S W ( S ∨ W ) T T T T F T F T T F F F 7

  31. Truth-Table for Disjunction ( ϕ ∨ ψ ) ϕ ψ T T T T F T F T T F F F 8

  32. Negation Eric didn’t have steak. ¬ S S ¬ S T F F T 9

  33. Negation Eric didn’t have steak. ¬ S S ¬ S T F F T 9

  34. Negation Eric didn’t have steak. ¬ S S ¬ S T F F T 9

  35. Truth-Table for Negation ϕ ¬ ϕ T F F T 10

  36. P ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T T P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T F F F T F F F F ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T P T Q ∨ R ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T F F T Q ∨ R F Q R Q ∨ R T T T T F T F T T Q F R F F F F 11

  37. P ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T T P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T F F F T F F F F ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T P T Q ∨ R ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T F F T Q ∨ R F Q R Q ∨ R T T T T F T F T T Q F R F F F F 11

  38. P ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T T P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T F F F T F F F F ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T P T Q ∨ R ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T F F T Q ∨ R F Q R Q ∨ R T T T T F T F T T Q F R F F F F 11

  39. P ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T T P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T F F F T F F F F ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T P T Q ∨ R ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T F F T Q ∨ R F Q R Q ∨ R T T T T F T F T T Q F R F F F F 11

  40. P ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T T P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T F F F T F F F F ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T P T Q ∨ R ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T F F T Q ∨ R F Q R Q ∨ R T T T T F T F T T Q F R F F F F 11

  41. P ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T T P ∧ ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T T F F F T F F F F ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T P T Q ∨ R ¬ ( Q ∨ R ) T F F T Q ∨ R F Q R Q ∨ R T T T T F T F T T Q F R F F F F 11

  42. Recap: Truth Tables ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) ( ϕ ∨ ψ ) ϕ ψ ϕ ψ T T T T T T T F F T F T F T F F T T F F F F F F ϕ ¬ ϕ T F F T 12

  43. Find truth tables for the formulas • P ∧ Q • ¬ ( P ∧ Q ) • ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q • ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q 13

  44. P Q ( P ∧ Q ) ¬ ( P ∧ Q ) ( ¬ P ∨ ¬ Q ) ( ¬ P ∧ ¬ Q ) T T T F F F T F F T T F F T F T T F F F F T T T ( P ∧ Q ) and ¬ ( P ∧ Q ) are contradictory : they always have opposite truth values 14

  45. Material Conditional If Eric had steak, then he had wine. ( S → W ) S W ( S → W ) T T T T F F F T T F F T 15

  46. Material Conditional If Eric had steak, then he had wine. ( S → W ) S W ( S → W ) T T T T F F F T T F F T 15

  47. Material Conditional If Eric had steak, then he had wine. ( S → W ) S W ( S → W ) T T T T F F F T T F F T 15

  48. Material Conditional If Eric had steak, then he had wine. ( S → W ) S W ( S → W ) T T T T F F F T T F F T 15

  49. Material Conditional If Eric had steak, then he had wine. ( S → W ) S W ( S → W ) T T T T F F F T T F F T 15

  50. Truth-Table for the Conditional ( ϕ → ψ ) ϕ ψ T T T T F F F T T F F T 16

  51. Recap: Truth Tables ( ϕ ∧ ψ ) ( ϕ ∨ ψ ) ϕ ψ ϕ ψ T T T T T T T F F T F T F T F F T T F F F F F F ( ϕ → ψ ) ϕ ψ T T T T F F F T T F F T ϕ ¬ ϕ T F F T 17

  52. A truth table for a formula ϕ is a table, where each row is a truth assignment for the atomic propositions in ϕ and there is a column for ϕ (and possible subformulas of ϕ ) list the truth values of ϕ for each truth assignment. 18

Recommend

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org An argument is valid if there is no situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is

725 views • 46 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Classical Logic Parameters 1. Syntax : if , are sentences, then so are , ,

813 views • 19 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Table of contents 1. Course Overview 2. Introduction to Reasoning 3. Logic 1 Introduction First

440 views • 33 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Recap: Truth Tables ( ) ( ) T T T T T T T F F T F T F

306 views • 29 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Recap: Truth Tables ( ) ( ) T T T T T T T F F T F T F

331 views • 20 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Recap: Truth Tables ( ) ( ) T T T T T T T F F T F T F

662 views • 41 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Formulas Formulas are constructed out of 1. Atomic propositions: Capital letters A , B , C , . . . 2.

1.11k views • 56 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Bayes Theorem Posterior Prior of H Pr ( H | E ) = Pr ( E | H ) Pr ( H ) Pr ( E ) Prior of observing E

480 views • 27 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Boolean Equivalences DeMorgans Law ( ) ( ) DeMorgans Law (

774 views • 51 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org Table of contents 1. Arguments 2. Representing Arguments 3. Arguments and Inference 1 Arguments

970 views • 59 slides
Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of

Reasoning for Humans: Clear Thinking in an Uncertain World PHIL 171 Eric Pacuit Department of Philosophy University of Maryland pacuit.org If an argument has premises that are not satisfiable, then the argument is valid. If all the premises

637 views • 30 slides
Uncertain Knowledge and Reasoning 9 AI Slides (6e) c Lin Zuoquan@PKU 1998-2020 9 1 9

Uncertain Knowledge and Reasoning 9 AI Slides (6e) c Lin Zuoquan@PKU 1998-2020 9 1 9

Uncertain Knowledge and Reasoning 9 AI Slides (6e) c Lin Zuoquan@PKU 1998-2020 9 1 9 Uncertain Knowledge and Reasoning 9.1 Uncertainty 9.2 Probability Syntax and semantics Inference Independence Bayes rule 9.3 Bayesian

1.18k views • 104 slides
Automated Reasoning (what this course is about) AUTOMATED REASONING machine does 'thinking'

Automated Reasoning (what this course is about) AUTOMATED REASONING machine does 'thinking'

0ai Automated Reasoning (what this course is about) AUTOMATED REASONING machine does 'thinking' machine does book-keeping, Krysia Broda user does nothing user does 'thinking'. Room 378 Concerned with GENERAL DEDUCTION - applicable in many

390 views • 5 slides
Automated Reasoning (what this course is about) machine does 'thinking' user does 'thinking'

Automated Reasoning (what this course is about) machine does 'thinking' user does 'thinking'

0ai Automated Reasoning (what this course is about) machine does 'thinking' user does 'thinking' AUTOMATED REASONING user does nothing machine keeps the books Krysia Broda Concerned with GENERAL DEDUCTION - applicable in many areas.

357 views • 6 slides
Assumption-based reasoning Assumption-based reasoning solving problems consisting of uncertain,

Assumption-based reasoning Assumption-based reasoning solving problems consisting of uncertain,

Spring 2005 IA008, Assumption-based learning Assumption-based reasoning Assumption-based reasoning solving problems consisting of uncertain, incomplete or inconsistent information. Assumptions to express possible interpretations, unknown

75 views • 3 slides
Stochastic Models of an Uncertain World x = F ( x , u ) x = F ( x , u , 1 ) Lecture

Stochastic Models of an Uncertain World x = F ( x , u ) x = F ( x , u , 1 ) Lecture

Stochastic Models of an Uncertain World x = F ( x , u ) x = F ( x , u , 1 ) Lecture 9: y G ( x ) y G ( x , 2 ) = = Observers and Kalman Filters Actions are uncertain. CS 344R/393R: Robotics Observations are

228 views • 3 slides
Reasoning with Uncertainty C h a p t e r 13 1 Outline Uncertainty Probability

Reasoning with Uncertainty C h a p t e r 13 1 Outline Uncertainty Probability

Reasoning with Uncertainty C h a p t e r 13 1 Outline Uncertainty Probability Syntax and Semantics Inference Independence and Bayes Rule 2 The real world is an uncertain place... Example: I need a plan that will get

744 views • 38 slides
Management of invasive species, pests and diseases: making decisions in an uncertain and complex

Management of invasive species, pests and diseases: making decisions in an uncertain and complex

Management of invasive species, pests and diseases: making decisions in an uncertain and complex world Yvonne Buckley University of Queensland, Australia Humans are the ultimate ecosystem engineers Invasions Extinctions Climate

778 views • 45 slides
Course Overview Lecture 7 Introduction Uncertain knowledge and Logical Agents Reasoning

Course Overview Lecture 7 Introduction Uncertain knowledge and Logical Agents Reasoning

Course Overview Lecture 7 Introduction Uncertain knowledge and Logical Agents Reasoning Artificial Intelligence Inference in First Order Logic Intelligent Agents Probability and Bayesian approach Search Bayesian Networks

560 views • 10 slides
Visual Reasoning Peng Wang School of Computing and Information Technology University of

Visual Reasoning Peng Wang School of Computing and Information Technology University of

Two New Datasets and Tasks on Visual Reasoning Peng Wang School of Computing and Information Technology University of Wollongong Fast thinking vs. Slow thinking Fast thinking Slow thinking Object recognition Ravens Progressive

883 views • 30 slides
3. Reasoning in Agents Part 1: Introduction to Reasoning ems (SMA-UPC) Javier Vzquez-Salceda

3. Reasoning in Agents Part 1: Introduction to Reasoning ems (SMA-UPC) Javier Vzquez-Salceda

3. Reasoning in Agents Part 1: Introduction to Reasoning ems (SMA-UPC) Javier Vzquez-Salceda q Multiagent Syste SMA-UPC https://kemlg.upc.edu What is Reasoning? More than thinking Taking a set of facts and deriving new ones in a

496 views • 26 slides
2. Reasoning in Agents Part 1: D) ems Design (MASD Introduction to Reasoning Javier

2. Reasoning in Agents Part 1: D) ems Design (MASD Introduction to Reasoning Javier

2. Reasoning in Agents Part 1: D) ems Design (MASD Introduction to Reasoning Javier Vzquez-Salceda q Multiagent Syste MASD https://kemlg.upc.edu What is Reasoning? More than thinking Taking a set of facts and deriving new ones in

632 views • 26 slides
Be: Clear On What You Want & Get Clear On How Marketing REALLY Works What Do You ACTUALLY

Be: Clear On What You Want & Get Clear On How Marketing REALLY Works What Do You ACTUALLY

Day ONE Be: Clear On What You Want & Get Clear On How Marketing REALLY Works What Do You ACTUALLY Want? What Are You Here For? It Should Scare You (Just A Little Bit) Your Potential is Unlimited You Owe The World Nothing Except To Show

582 views • 44 slides
Using Uncertain Knowledge Agents dont have complete knowledge about the world. Agents

Using Uncertain Knowledge Agents dont have complete knowledge about the world. Agents

Using Uncertain Knowledge Agents dont have complete knowledge about the world. Agents need to make decisions based on their uncertainty. It isnt enough to assume what the world is like. Example: wearing a seat belt. An agent

466 views • 14 slides

More recommend