## Meet the Robinson: 4

#### Monday, January 11, 2016 · 9 min read

Welcome to the final installment of Meet the Robinson.

We left off last time with a complete but slow theorem-proving algorithm for first-order logic, as well as a promise of a faster algorithm. The faster algorithm depends on a concept called “unification”, so let’s talk about that first.

• No, this has nothing to do with Otto von Bismarck. Nevertheless, try to come up with a good Germany pun here if you can.

Propositional resolution involved finding a pair of identical propositions in opposite polarities (one in “positive” and one in “negated” polarity). In first-order logic, though, we can do better. We can find pairs that have the same “shape”.

• Explain how Wrote[X, hamlet()] and Wrote[shakespeare(), Y] are the same “shape”.
• Come up with a rigorous definition of “same shape” which involves replacing some (universally quantified) variables to make the predicates identical.

The process of substituting variables to make two predicates identical is called unification. If you’ve worked with Hindley-Milner type inference, you know what unification is—it’s the stage where you figure out what the type variables you spawned expand to.

The unification algorithm isn’t hard to implement at all. It tells you whether two predicates unify or not, and if they do unify, it comes up with a substitution for each variable that can be applied to make them identical. Substitutions replace a variable with either a function or another variable. People talk about unification in terms of “solving equations” of functions and variables, if that makes more sense to you.

In particular, unification algorithms come up with the most general such unifier, so variables that don’t need to be substituted are left as-is.

• Which variables are left unsubstituted in the unification of P[X, Y] and P[X, f(Z)]?

Unification algorithms are covered in detail in SICP. Most people use the algorithm by Martelli and Montanari. Peter Norvig has published a correction to the algorithm. His paper actually has a very succinct and clear description of the algorithm, and can be found on his site here.

• Explain why P[X] and P[f(X)] don’t unify (why do we need the “occurs check”?). Come up with a way to relate this to (1) the Y combinator, and (2) finding the roots of a polynomial.

And now back to theorem-proving.

Unification allowed Robinson to prove the lifting lemma, which says that if we have a valid resolution step at the propositional level (with ground clauses), then we must have a valid resolution at the first-order level. For example, we can unify P[a(), b()] and ¬P[a(), b()]. Since the former is a ground instance of P[X, Y] and the latter is an instance of ¬P[a(), Y], we deduce that there must be a resolvent of P[X, Y] and ¬P[a(), Y]. One such resolvent is P[a(), Y].

The lifting lemma also guarantees that the resolvent of the ground instances is an instance of the resolvent of the first-order clauses. In this example, note that P[a(), b()] is an instance of P[a(), Y] because if you substitute b() for Y in the latter you get the former.

• Use the lifting lemma to show that P[a(), b(X), Z] and ¬P[X, b(Y), c(X)] have a resolvent. Find the ground instance and the first-order resolvent and show that the ground instance is an instance of the first-order resolvent.
• Convince yourself the lifting lemma is true using what you know about unification.

The lifting lemma lets us “lift” propositional resolution to first-order resolution. Instead of checking if two terms are equal as in propositional resolution, we check if they unify, and if they do, we apply the substitution to the resolvent. Thus, we end up “iteratively” building up the ground instance at each resolution step. This is much more efficient than the Davis-Putnam algorithm, which had to guess the ground instance out of the blue.

Here’s an example. Suppose we had (P[a(), Y] ∨ ¬ A[X]) and (A[X] ∨ ¬P[X, b()]). First, we note that P[a(), Y] and P[X, b()] appear in opposite polarities in the two clauses, and that they unify. The substitution is X becomes a() and Y becomes b(). Applying this substition yields (P[a(), b()] ∨ ¬ A[a()]) and (A[a()] ∨ ¬P[a(), b()]). Resolving out that term, we have A[a()] and ¬A[a()] which clearly resolve to the empty clause, which completes the proof.

• Use first-order resolution to prove that if (∀ X) P[X] then (∃ Y) P[Y]. Then, translate your proof to English.
• If we try to prove something that is false, then the set of sentences (knowledge base and negated goal) is satisfiable—it is impossible to find a resolution-style contradiction because there are no contradiction. In this case, is the resolution-refutation procedure guaranteed to terminate? What about if we were still using propositional logic?

Hilbert’s Entscheidungsproblem, posed in 1928, asked whether there was an algorithm that would tell you whether a first-order set of sentences was valid or not (he believed that there was!). Alonzo Church used the lambda calculus to prove that there was not, in fact, such an algorithm. That same year, Turing used Turing machines to prove the same thing by reducing the halting problem to the Entscheidungsproblem. That is, they found a way to encode programs as statements in first-order logic such that asking whether the statements are provable is the same as asking whether the programs terminate.

• Say “Entscheidungsproblem” out loud three times.
• Very carefully clarify the difference between Gödel’s Completeness Theorem and the Church-Turing Thesis (i.e. answer to Entscheidungsproblem).
• Look up the approximate timeframe of these discoveries. Then, look up when the first Turing complete computer was built. Peter Landin was one of the first people to realize that the lambda-calculus was useful in computer programming—over thirty years after Church first posed the lambda-calculus.
• Give two reasons why a lot of information on these subjects can be found on online philosophy encyclopedias.

A classic logic puzzle goes as follows:

Anyone who owns a dog is an animal lover. No animal lovers kill cats. Either Jack (who owns a dog) or Curiosity killed the cat. Who killed the cat?

This isn’t a “proof” as such, it’s a question. It turns out that the same tricks work for answering questions (or “querying”).

Suppose we are asking for an X such that Killed[X, cat()]. If we were trying to prove something, we would negate our goal and add it to the knowledge base. Since we’re querying, we need to make a small modification. We add this sentence to the knowledge base: Answer[X] ∨ ¬Killed[X, cat()]. Now, rather than looking for empty clauses, we look for clauses which only contain one predicate, which is Answer[*].

Once we extract the X from the Answer[*] predicate, it’s easy to see why it must be the answer. Simply re-run the theorem prover asking it to prove that Killed[X, cat()] (but substitute in the actual value of X you got). Since the proof is basically the same as above (ignoring the Answer[*] predicate), it must succeed. So, we know that our answer must be “correct” (in the sense that it is consistent with the knowledge base).

Let’s work through a small example. Suppose we have Wet[water()] and we want to query for an X such that Wet[X]. We construct the answer clause Answer[X] ∨ ¬Wet[X]. Then, we resolve against Wet[water()], unifying so that X is water() to get Answer[water()].

• Could you have multiple “correct” answers? Come up with a knowledge base where a query has multiple possible correct responses. How do you know which response the algorithm will output?
• Solve the Curiosity puzzle above using first-order resolution with an answer predicate.
• Here’s another such puzzle:

Animal lovers love all animals. At least one person loves every animal lover. Nobody loves a person who has killed an animal. Either Jack (who loves all animals) or Curiosity killed Tuna, who is an animal. Who killed Tuna?

• Reason through it in English and figure out who killed Tuna. Write down your reasoning somewhere.
• Translate each fact into first-order logic.
• Resolution-refute to find out who killed Tuna.
• Translate your refutation procedure into English.
• Compare this reasoning with the one you did earlier.

All texts on resolution theorem proving talk about heuristics, so I guess I will too. But I won’t spend too much time on it. There are a few ways to be “clever” about how to pick which clauses to try to resolve. The first one is unit preference, which simply says clauses that have a single predicate are a good choice because if the resolution does work, you’re done. You probably use this heuristic without even knowing it: you’re likelier to try to resolve shorter clauses because it “feels” like a reasonable choice.

The second one is the set of support, which says that you can divide up your clauses into the axioms (which are supposed to be consistent within themselves) and the stuff to be proved (which should have a contradiction with the axioms). Then, you make sure you always use a sentence from the latter set when you resolve, because if you use two statements from the set of axioms, you won’t get a contradiction because they’re supposed to be consistent among themselves.

In other words, this is the heuristic form of “if you’re stuck, check to see if you have used all the information in the problem”. If you’re too aggressive with the set-of-support strategy, you might miss an important resolution and so the algorithm might become incomplete. Use responsibly at your own peril.

The last is called subsumption, which is basically spring cleaning. Every once in a while, clean out duplicate clauses. Be clever, so if one clause “subsumes” another (i.e. one is a ground instance of a more general clause) then delete the more specific one. Fewer clauses means faster resolution, but subsumption itself can get kind of slow.

• How can you detect if one clause subsumes another? Come up with a specific, rigorous definition.

And that’s it. I don’t know why this is such a big deal, but these three things always show up on every piece of literature on resolution-refutation theorem proving. Maybe it’s because Russell and Norvig covered them in their textbook and everyone else thought they were really important.

One last thing we need to talk about: equality.

Euclid’s first common notion is this: Things which are equal to the same things are equal to each other. That’s a rule of mathematical reasoning and its true because it works - has done and always will do. In his book Euclid says this is self evident. You see there it is even in that 2000 year old book of mechanical law it is the self evident truth that things which are equal to the same things are equal to each other. – Lincoln (2012)

Our theorem prover doesn’t support equality out-of-the-box. That is, we can’t tell it that father(father(X)) is the same as grandfather(X), and so those two functions are interchangeable.

We can, of course, write our own equality axioms (as we did for the Peano arithmetic above).

The issue is that we then need to also define the “replacement” axiom for every single predicate: Equal[A, B]P[A]P[B].

• Relate this to why we can’t do induction in first-order logic.

The solution is to use the paramodulation rule, which is an additional inference rule just like resolution is. It says that if you have a clause with a term that contains some subterm t and you also have a clause that contains T=U where T and t unify, then you can replace t with U, apply the substitution from the unification to both clauses, and then join them together, taking out the equality statement.

For example, given P[g(f(X))]Q[X] and f(g(b()))=a()R[g(c)], we can derive P[g(a())]Q[g(b())]]R[g(c())].

• What was the unification here? What was the resultant substitution?
• Convince yourself that the paramodulation rule is true.
• Write the paramodulation rule in “fraction form”.
• Do we still need the equality axioms (which we talked about when discussing the Peano axioms)?

In his thesis, Herbrand showed that you don’t need equality axioms to prove theorems if your knowledge base doesn’t have any equality statements in it.

…and that’s it. That’s actually all there is. Combining resolution, unification, and paramodulation let us build the theorem prover that Robinson used to prove the Robbins conjecture. You can check out my own implementation here. It’s lovingly named Eddie, after the shipboard computer aboard the Heart of Gold which froze when asked for a cup of tea by Arthur Dent.

Epilogue: If you’ve stayed with me on this journey, you’ve learned the basics of formal logic, model theory, and proof theory. You’ve explored several famous theorems in each field and seen (human-generated!) proofs of them. You’ve discovered how math is rigorized. And, finally, you’ve seen some of the rich history of logic and how it connects not just to various branches of math, but also to subjects as abstract as philosophy and as practical as computer science.

• In what “universe” did the proofs covered in this series live? For example, can the proof of the propositional compactness theorem be encoded in first-order logic? Is it even legal to talk about a logic within that logic? Or is it a bad case of “turtles all the way down”? Do we need to take something on faith at some point, or are there fundamental mathematical truths somewhere? What does this have to do with cogito ergo sum?

Yet, in a way, this isn’t about having a machine that can prove theorems. Like many things in life—marathons, pie-eating contests, and bank robberies—I think the pleasure is more in knowing that you can do it than in actually doing it.

Why? Because contrary to Rényi, mathematics is not about turning coffee into theorems. An oracle that just tells you whether or not a statement is true is useless; the real beauty is in understanding why it’s true. A world where math is an endless stream of abstract, intuition-less symbol-shunting is bleak. Resolution-refutation proofs have no insight or motivation. They are completely mechanical.

But then again, maybe that’s exactly what we were going for.

I’ve admittedly been extremely lazy about citing my sources when writing these articles. I have, however, diligently kept a list of links to resources I found helpful. It feels appropriate to give them the last word here, so, in no particular order, here they are:

◊ ◊ ◊