Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 11 Mar 2007 12:44:42 -0700
Neil Madden says...
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 think you're right. I believe that it is typo. What the author
probably meant was T = {(b,a), (b,b)}. For this graph, the definition
of T(x,y) tells us that
T(b,a) = G(b,a) \/ Ez (G(b,z) /\ T(z,a))
which for the case of two nodes a and b becomes
T(b,a) = G(b,a) \/ (G(b,b) /\ T(b,a)) \/ (G(b,a) /\ T(a,a))
Since G(b,a) is false and G(b,b) is true, this reduces to
T(b,a) = false \/ (true /\ T(b,a)) \/ (false /\ T(a,a))
= T(b,a)
So the definition gives no information about T(b,a). It could
be true, or it could be false. Either way is consistent.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: Neil Madden
- Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- References:
- Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- From: Neil Madden
- Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Prev by Date: Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Next by Date: Re: infinitely many nn's = infinite nn's?
- Previous by thread: Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Next by thread: Re: Knowledge in Action (Reiter) - example 2.1.1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|