Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: Neil Madden <nem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:40:38 GMT
Hi all,
I have just started reading Raymond Reiter's "Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems", and am finding it hard to understand an early example. The author is explaining why first-order logic is insufficient to define transitive closure of a graph, G, and says that the following "naive" definition is incorrect:
T(x, y) <=> G(x, y) \/ (Ez).(G(x, z) /\ T(z, y)).
(Hopefully that is readable: E is existential quantification here).
The author then describes a counter-example (example 2.1.1):
"Consider the directed graph with two vertices a and b, and with a single directed edge G(b, b). Consider a structure with universe {a, b} that interprets G as {(b, b)} and T as {(a, b), (b, b)}. In other words, the structure represents the graph G (by declaring that there is an edge from b to b, and no other edges), and it assigns true to T(a, b) and T(b, b). It is easy to check that this structure is a model of the above naive definition for transitive closure. ..."
I must be missing something in the semantics, because I don't see how a model of T given the above definition can allow T(a, b) to be true, as there is no edge in G that involves a at all. Any help greatly appreciated.
I'd like to make sure I understand this point fully before I move on, as it seems crucial to Reiter's argument for second-order logic.
-- Neil
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: Chris Menzel
- Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Prev by Date: Re: infinitely many nn's = infinite nn's?
- Next by Date: Re: help with Godel's
- Previous by thread: Jang Min Han as the Next Bill Gates?
- Next by thread: Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|