Mostly, we spent the period playing with Prolog and the knowledge base we have worked with this week.
If there is time, we will play with the following:
Represent the following sentences in logic.
One more outburst like that and you’ll be in contempt of court!
A new ER is on TV tonight, if you’re interested.
Either the Yankees win the pennant, or I’m out $10.00.
Maybe I’ll come to your party, and maybe I won’t.
Well, I like Bob and I don’t like Bob.
Solutions?
1. One more outburst like that and you’ll be in contempt of court!
Straightforward translation:
haveOutburst(You) and inContempt(You)
Consequence:
inContempt(You) must be true!
Intended meaning:
haveOutburst(You) implies inContempt(You)
2. ER is on TV tonight, if you’re interested.
Straightforward translation:
interested( You, ER ) implies onTubeTonight( ER )
Consequence:
What if I am not interested?
Intended meaning:
onTubeTonight( ER ) and ( interested( You, ER )
implies canWatchTonight( You,ER
) )3. Either the Yankees win the pennant, or I’m out $10.00.
Straightforward translation:
win( Yankees, pennant-of( AL, 2007 ) ) or lose(JBS, $10)
Consequence: What if the Yankees win? Where is the causality?
Intended meaning:
prevent( win(Yankees, pennant-of( AL, 2007 ) ),
lose(JBS, $10) )
4. Maybe I’ll come to your party, and maybe I won’t.
Straightforward translation:
( maybe( comeTo( JBS, YourParty ) ) ) or
( maybe( not comeTo( JBS, YourParty ) ) )
Consequence: The translation is a tautology!
Intended meaning:
undecided comeTo( JBS, YourParty )
Consequence: We need an operator that deals with possibility...
5. Well, I like Bob and I don’t like Bob.
Straightforward translation:
like( JBS, Bob ) and not like(JBS, Bob )
Consequence: The translation is a contradiction!
Intended meaning:
$ way1, way2
like( JBS, Bob, way1 ) and
not like(JBS, Bob, way2 ) )
Consequence: We need to represent states explicitly.