Propositional and First Order Logic Questions and Answers

Q: What must an agent do between telling and asking?

The separation of tell from ask means consequences are derived on demand rather than eagerly, which keeps the base small at the cost of work at query time. Some systems do forward chain eagerly instead, which is the opposite trade. Normal form conversion and consistency checking are optional preprocessing. Choosing between computing consequences when they are learned and when they are needed is the same eager against lazy trade found throughout computing.

Q: What is forward chaining in a rule based system?

Forward chaining is data driven, firing every rule whose conditions are met and adding the conclusions, which suits a system reacting to a stream of observations. Backward chaining is goal driven and does less work when only one question matters. Rule composition and textual order are different notions. Matching the direction of inference to whether data or questions arrive first is a decision that can change the work done by orders of magnitude.

Q: When is backward chaining preferable?

Working back from the query touches only the rules relevant to it, whereas forward chaining would derive an enormous number of true but irrelevant facts. Streaming data favours forward chaining. Variables and eventual need are separate considerations, the last favouring forward chaining. Directing computation by what is actually wanted, rather than computing everything and selecting afterwards, is a principle far wider than inference.

Q: What is the frame of a logical agent's knowledge about its world?

An agent reasoning about action needs to say not only what each action changes but what it leaves untouched, and stating that concisely is the frame problem. Perceptual boundaries, belief validity and vocabulary are different notions. That the difficulty lies in describing what does not happen, rather than what does, is the counter-intuitive core of reasoning about action and it is worth stating in exactly those terms.

Q: Why is logic attractive as a representation for an agent?

Adding a sentence extends what the agent knows without any code being written, which is the declarative promise that motivated the whole approach. Speed is generally poor, every logic makes an ontological commitment, and first order questions are not answerable in bounded time. The ability to extend a system by stating facts rather than by programming is the property that justified the cost, and it is worth naming precisely.

Q: What is the main practical objection to logical agents?

Almost everything an agent believes is probable rather than certain and admits exceptions, which classical logic handles badly and probability theory handles naturally. That objection drove the field's shift towards probabilistic methods. Storage, soundness and relations are not the difficulty. An approach whose limitation lies in the character of the knowledge rather than in the machinery is one that must be supplemented rather than optimised.

Q: How did the field respond to the defeasibility of real knowledge?

Bayesian networks and the non-monotonic logics were both developed to handle knowledge that is uncertain or defeasible, and the probabilistic branch has proved by far the more influential. Restriction to certain domains would exclude almost everything interesting, and adding rules to a monotonic logic cannot make it non-monotonic. Two distinct responses to the same limitation, one of which prospered, is a piece of the field's history worth knowing when reading older literature.

Q: What remains valuable about the logical tradition?

Where a conclusion must be justified, audited or guaranteed, an explicit derivation from stated premises is exactly what is required, and no learned model supplies it. Speed, learning and coverage are where the alternatives are stronger. Judging a tradition by the properties it uniquely supplies, rather than by whether it won, is what allows it to be combined sensibly with the approaches that displaced it.

Q: What is a proposition symbol?

In propositional logic each symbol stands for a whole statement with no internal structure, so nothing can be said about the objects the statement concerns. Object denotation, connectives and bindable variables belong to first order syntax. That the smallest unit is a whole fact, rather than an object or a property, is exactly the limitation that first order logic removes, and stating it precisely explains why the step upward was needed.

Q: What are the standard propositional connectives?

The five connectives build compound sentences from simpler ones, and each has a truth table fixing exactly when the compound is true. Quantifiers belong to first order logic, and the other lists are arithmetic and programming constructs. That every connective is truth functional, so the truth of a compound depends only on the truth of its parts, is what makes truth tables a complete account of the semantics.

81.

What must an agent do between telling and asking?

A.Nothing; inference happens when the question is asked
B.Convert the knowledge base into conjunctive normal form
C.Verify that the new sentence is consistent with the old
D.Recompute every consequence of the knowledge base

Answer: A

The separation of tell from ask means consequences are derived on demand rather than eagerly, which keeps the base small at the cost of work at query time. Some systems do forward chain eagerly instead, which is the opposite trade. Normal form conversion and consistency checking are optional preprocessing. Choosing between computing consequences when they are learned and when they are needed is the same eager against lazy trade found throughout computing.

Discuss in Forum

82.

What is forward chaining in a rule based system?

A.Applying rules in the order in which they were written
B.Deriving every consequence as new facts arrive
C.Working backwards from a query to the facts supporting it
D.Chaining rules together into longer composite rules

Answer: B

Forward chaining is data driven, firing every rule whose conditions are met and adding the conclusions, which suits a system reacting to a stream of observations. Backward chaining is goal driven and does less work when only one question matters. Rule composition and textual order are different notions. Matching the direction of inference to whether data or questions arrive first is a decision that can change the work done by orders of magnitude.

Discuss in Forum

83.

When is backward chaining preferable?

A.When the rule base contains no variables in its conditions
B.When every consequence of the facts will eventually be needed
C.When a specific query matters and most consequences do not
D.When facts arrive continuously and must be processed at once

Answer: C

Working back from the query touches only the rules relevant to it, whereas forward chaining would derive an enormous number of true but irrelevant facts. Streaming data favours forward chaining. Variables and eventual need are separate considerations, the last favouring forward chaining. Directing computation by what is actually wanted, rather than computing everything and selecting afterwards, is a principle far wider than inference.

Discuss in Forum

84.

What is the frame of a logical agent's knowledge about its world?

A.The boundary of the region the agent can perceive
B.The window of time over which its beliefs remain valid
C.The set of predicates the agent's language contains
D.The sentences describing what its actions change and leave alone

Answer: D

An agent reasoning about action needs to say not only what each action changes but what it leaves untouched, and stating that concisely is the frame problem. Perceptual boundaries, belief validity and vocabulary are different notions. That the difficulty lies in describing what does not happen, rather than what does, is the counter-intuitive core of reasoning about action and it is worth stating in exactly those terms.

Discuss in Forum

85.

Why is logic attractive as a representation for an agent?

A.Knowledge can be added without changing the reasoning machinery
B.Logical inference is faster than any alternative method
C.Logic requires no commitment about what the world contains
D.Every question can be answered in bounded time

Answer: A

Adding a sentence extends what the agent knows without any code being written, which is the declarative promise that motivated the whole approach. Speed is generally poor, every logic makes an ontological commitment, and first order questions are not answerable in bounded time. The ability to extend a system by stating facts rather than by programming is the property that justified the cost, and it is worth naming precisely.

Discuss in Forum

86.

What is the main practical objection to logical agents?

A.Logic cannot represent relations between several objects
B.Real knowledge is uncertain and defeasible rather than categorical
C.Logical formulas cannot be stored in a computer efficiently
D.No sound inference procedure exists for any useful logic

Answer: B

Almost everything an agent believes is probable rather than certain and admits exceptions, which classical logic handles badly and probability theory handles naturally. That objection drove the field's shift towards probabilistic methods. Storage, soundness and relations are not the difficulty. An approach whose limitation lies in the character of the knowledge rather than in the machinery is one that must be supplemented rather than optimised.

Discuss in Forum

87.

How did the field respond to the defeasibility of real knowledge?

A.By restricting attention to domains with certain knowledge
B.By adding more inference rules to classical logic
C.By developing probabilistic and non-monotonic formalisms
D.By abandoning knowledge representation altogether

Answer: C

Bayesian networks and the non-monotonic logics were both developed to handle knowledge that is uncertain or defeasible, and the probabilistic branch has proved by far the more influential. Restriction to certain domains would exclude almost everything interesting, and adding rules to a monotonic logic cannot make it non-monotonic. Two distinct responses to the same limitation, one of which prospered, is a piece of the field's history worth knowing when reading older literature.

Discuss in Forum

88.

What remains valuable about the logical tradition?

A.The speed of logical inference on large knowledge bases
B.Its ability to learn representations directly from data
C.The completeness of its coverage of commonsense knowledge
D.Precise semantics, auditable inference and clear guarantees

Answer: D

Where a conclusion must be justified, audited or guaranteed, an explicit derivation from stated premises is exactly what is required, and no learned model supplies it. Speed, learning and coverage are where the alternatives are stronger. Judging a tradition by the properties it uniquely supplies, rather than by whether it won, is what allows it to be combined sensibly with the approaches that displaced it.

Discuss in Forum

89.

What is a proposition symbol?

A.An atomic statement that is either true or false
B.A symbol denoting an object in the domain of discourse
C.A connective joining two sentences into a compound one
D.A variable that a quantifier may bind in a formula

Answer: A

In propositional logic each symbol stands for a whole statement with no internal structure, so nothing can be said about the objects the statement concerns. Object denotation, connectives and bindable variables belong to first order syntax. That the smallest unit is a whole fact, rather than an object or a property, is exactly the limitation that first order logic removes, and stating it precisely explains why the step upward was needed.

Discuss in Forum

90.

What are the standard propositional connectives?

A.Assignment, comparison, iteration and selection of statements
B.Negation, conjunction, disjunction, implication and equivalence
C.Universal and existential quantification over objects
D.Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of values

Answer: B

The five connectives build compound sentences from simpler ones, and each has a truth table fixing exactly when the compound is true. Quantifiers belong to first order logic, and the other lists are arithmetic and programming constructs. That every connective is truth functional, so the truth of a compound depends only on the truth of its parts, is what makes truth tables a complete account of the semantics.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Topics

Other Subjects

Tags: Propositional and First Order Logic Questions and Answers || Propositional and First Order Logic MCQ Questions and Answers || Propositional and First Order Logic GK Questions and Answers || Propositional and First Order Logic GK MCQ Questions || Propositional and First Order Logic Multiple Choice Questions and Answers || Propositional and First Order Logic GK || GK on Propositional and First Order Logic || Artificial Intelligence Questions and Answers || Artificial Intelligence MCQ Questions and Answers || Artificial Intelligence GK Questions and Answers || GK on Artificial Intelligence

Propositional and First Order Logic Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications