First Order Logic

First Order Logic
Predicates, Forall, & Exists

 vs 
The Proof Game
Negations
Reals
Games
Classifying Functions
Computable & Uncomputable
Time Complexity
Jeff Edmonds
Church's Thesis
Lecture 0 York University Many Courses
Understand Quantifiers!!!
Say, I have a game for you.
We will each choose an integer.
You win if yours is bigger.
I am so nice, I will even let you go first.
Easy.
I choose a trillion trillion.
Well done. That is big!
But I choose a trillion trillion and one

so I win.
You laugh but this is
a very important game
in theoretical computer science.
You choose the size of your Java program.

Then I choose the size of the input.
Likely |I| >> |J|
So you better be sure your Java program
can handle such long inputs.
The first order logic we can state
that I win the game:
"x, $y, y>x
The proof:
Let x be an arbitrary integer.
Let y = x+1
Note y = x+1 >x
Good game.
Let me try again. I will win this time!
Loves(b,g) Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
A relation/predicate
• returns True/False
• depending whether objects
b and g have relation Loves.
Loves(Sam,Mary) = False
Loves(Sam,Beth) = True
Loves(b,g) Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
“There exists a boy that loves Mary”

b, Loves(b,Mary) False
b, Loves(b,Beth) True
“Every boy loves Beth”
"b, Loves(b,Beth) False
"b, Loves(b,MM) True
Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
In all three examples, Monro
Fred Ann
every boy loves a girl. One girl
The difference? Sam Mary

Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
Could be a separate girl.
Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
His special woman.
Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
“There is a girl whom every boy loves” Monro
Fred Ann
“There is a inverse (eg 1/3) for all reals.”One girl
Sam Mary
Not clear.
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
Sam Mary
Bob Beth
“For each boy, there is a girl.” John
Marilin
Monro
“For each person, there is God.” Fred Ann
His special woman.
Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
One girl
Sam Mary
$g, "b, Loves(b, g) Bob Beth
Marilin
John
"b, $g, Loves(b, g)
Monro
Fred Ann
Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
His special woman.
$g, "b, Loves(b, g, date) Sam Mary
 Property (date)
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Let’s understand this deeply One girl
Fred Ann
Which variable is this statement about?:

– boy b
– girl g
– time date
Here the date is considered free variable

because it is not bounded by a $ or a "
quantifier.
Hence, the sentence
= true says something
about date.
= false
$g,["b, Loves(b, g)] Sam Mary
 $ g , Property (g)
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann

– boy b
– girl g
There are no free variables and hence depending
on the world, this is either true or false.
$ g is the left most quantifier. Hence,

this statement is “about” the collection of girls,
i.e. the existence of at least one with some property.
"b, Loves(b, g) Sam Mary
 bProperty(g)
 , Property g  ( b
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann

– boy b
– girl g
Girl g would have been a free variable,
but g denotes a specific girl like MM.
"b is the left most quantifier. Hence,

this statement is “about” the collection of boys,
i.e. that all of them have some property.
$g, "b, Loves(b, g) Sam
Bob
Mary
Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
One girl
Build understanding by building the statement backwards.
What does each subsequence say about its free variables.
(with little emphasis on the bound variables.)
Loves(b, g) “boy b loves girl g”.

"b, Loves(b, g) “girl g is loved by all boys”.
$ g, "b, Loves(b, g) “there is girl that is loved by all boys”.
Understand Quantifiers!!! Sam Mary
$g, "b, Loves(b, g) Bob Beth
"b, $g, Loves(b, g) John

Marilin
Monro
Fred Ann
His special woman.
Build understanding by building the statement backwards.
What does each subsequence say about its free variables.
(with little emphasis on the bound variables.)
Loves(b, g) “boy b loves girl g”.

"b, Loves(b, g) “girl g is loved by all boys”.
$ g, "b, Loves(b, g) “there is girl that is loved by all boys”.
$ g, Loves(b, g) “boy b loves some girl”.

"b, $g, Loves(b, g) “every boy loves some girl”.
Proof: "b, $g, Loves(b, g)
I must insist that you prove this using
the following game.
Two players:
a prover and a disprover.
Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
They read the statement left to right.
I produce the object when it is a $.

I produce the object when it is a ".
Sam Mary
I can always win
if and only if Bob Beth
statement is true. Marilin
John
Monro
Fred Ann
Proof: "b, $g, Loves(b, g) true
No! I produce b=Bob.
Knowing you chose Bob,

I produce g = Marilin Monro
Bob loves MM so I win.
Sam Mary
b=John!
Bob Beth
g=Mary
Marilin
and I still win. John
Monro
Fred Ann
$g, "b, Loves(b, g) false
The order the players go
REALY matters.
Ha ha
You need to go first now! Sam Mary
I produce g = MM Bob Beth
Nope. b=John Marilin

John
Monro
does not love her
Fred Ann
$g, "b, Loves(b, g) false
REALY matters.
I could only win

Sam Mary
this game if there
was a single girl Bob Beth
loved by every boy.
Marilin
John
Yup Monro
Fred Ann
$g, "b, Loves(b, g) false true
Good. Now I produce g=MM.
Knowing MM, I produce boy b.

Sam Mary
I prove b loves MM.
Bob Beth
Marilin
I can always win. John
Monro
Hence, statement is true. Fred Ann
Prove: A B
"b, $g, Loves(b, g)
Assume A and prove B.
If A is true, then there is a strategy for the game.
i.e. for any b requested,
the strategy responds with a g
such that Loves(b, g) is true.
Sam Mary
Bob Beth
Marilin
Sam A Beth John
Monro
Fred Ann
Fred Ann
Negations: Ø[ $g, "b, Loves(b, g) ]
= "g, Ø[ "b, Loves(b, g) ]
= "g, $b, Ø[ Loves(b, g) ]
= "g, $b, ØLoves(b, g)
Ø moves right
$ "
= 
Reals
Build understanding by building the
"x, $y, x+y=0 statement backwards.
$y, "x, x+y=0 What does each subsequence say
about its free variables.
$y, "x, x+y=x (with little emphasis on the bound
2 -2 variables.)
x+y=0 “y is the additive inverse of x”.
$y, x+y=0 “x has an additive inverse”.
"x, $y, x+y=0 “Every real has an additive inverse”.
x+y=0 “x is the additive inverse of y”.
"x, x+y=0 “Every real is an additive inverse of y.
$ y, "x, x+y=0 “Some real has every real as an inverse”.
x+y=x “Adding y does not change x”.
"x, x+y=x “Adding y makes no changes”.
$ y, "x, x+y=x “There is an additive zero”.
Reals
Proof: "x, $y, x+y=0 true (additive inverse)
Let x be an arbitrary real number.
Let y = -x.
The relation is true.

x+y = x + (-x) = 0
I can always win.

Hence, the statement is true.
“Every real number has an additive inverse.”
Reals
$y, "x, x+y=0

REALY matters.
Reals
$y, "x, x+y=0 false
Let y = ??? aaah
Let x=-y+1
The relation is false.
x+y = (-y+1) + y ≠ 0
I can always win.

Hence, the statement is false.
Reals
$y, "x, x+y=0 false
Again, I could only

win this game if there
was a single y that
works for every x.
Yup
Reals
$y, "x, x+y=0 false
$y, "x, x+y=x true (additive zero)
Let y = 0.
Then x+y=x is true

for all y.
Many students answer this.

But NO!
I insist that you play the game.
Reals
$y, "x, x+y=0 false
$y, "x, x+y=x true (additive zero)
Let y = 0.

x+y = x + (0) = x
See there is my single y that

works for all x.
Reals
"x, $y, x×y=1 Build understanding by building the
statement backwards.
$x,"y, x×y  1 What does each subsequence say
about its free variables.
(with little emphasis on the bound
2 ½ variables.)
x×y=1 “y is the multiplicative inverse of x”.
$ y, x×y=1 “x has an multiplicative inverse”.
"x, $ y, x×y=1 “Every real has an multiplicative inverse”.
What about zero.
x×y  1 “y is not the multiplicative inverse of x”.

"y, x×y  1 “Everything fails to be x’s mult inverse”.
“x’s does not have a mult inverse”.
$x,"y, x×y  1 “There is a real without x’s a mult inverse”.
Namely zero.
Reals
“Every real has an additive inverse "x, property(x)

except for zero.”
“x has an additive inverse property(x)
or True for all reals.
x is zero.”
( $ y, x×y=1)
or (x=0)
( $ y, x=0) ?
$y, x=0 or x×y=1
Reals
$a, "x, $y, x=a or x×y=1
“Every real has an additive inverse "x, $ y, x=0 or x×y=1

except for zero.”
with one exception.”
Reals
Proof: "x, $y, x×y=1 (multiplicative inverse)
Let y = 1/x.

x×y = x × 1/x = 1
I can always win.

Hence, the statement is true.
What a minute the statement is false!
Reals
Proof: Ø[ "x, $y, x×y=1 ] = $x, "y, x×y  1
Let x=0.
Let y be an arbitrary real number.
The negated relation is true.

x×y = 0×y = 0  1
I can always win.

Hence, the negated statement is true
and the original statement is false.
Reals
Proof: $a, "x, $y, x=a or x×y=1
How about
“Every real number has a
multiplicative inverse
except for zero”
Reals
Proof: $a, "x, $y, x=a or x×y=1
Let a=0.
If x= 0, let y=5.
Else let y= 1/x . I can
always win.
x=a or x×y=1 is always Hence,
true. the statement
If x= 0, then x=a. is true.
1
Playing Game White moves.
Who wins? Black moves.
White wins
Black wins
White wins
Black wins
White wins
Black wins
M1w M1b White wins
Black wins
Black has a
winning strategy
"M1w, $M1b, Black-Wins(M1w,M1b)

M1w M1b White wins
White wins
White has a
winning strategy
$M1w, "M1b, White-Wins(M1w,M1b)

$M1w, "M1b, $M2w, "M2b, $M3w, "M3b, White-Wins(...
f(n) = θ(g(n))
 c 1, c 2,  n 0,  n  n 0, c 1 g ( n )  f ( n )  c 2 g ( n )
f(n) is sandwiched between c1g(n) and c2g(n)
for some sufficiently small c1 (= 0.0001)
f(n) = θ(g(n))
 c 1, c 2,  n 0,  n  n 0, c 1 g ( n )  f ( n )  c 2 g ( n )
For all sufficiently large n
For some definition of “sufficiently large”
Proof: $c,n0, "n≥n0, 8n2+1000n ≤ cn2 true
Let c=9 & n0=1000.
Let n be an arbitrary real number
≥1000
8n2+1000n ≤ 8n2+n2 = 9n2 = cn2
See there is my single c that

works for all sufficiently large n.
$c,n0, "n≥n0, 2n ≤ cn false
Let c=10000000 & n0=1.
Let n=c.
The relation is false.

2n > n∙n = cn
"n, $c, 2n ≤ cn

REALY matters.
"n, $c, 2n ≤ cn true
Let n=10000000
Let c=2n.
2n ≤ 2nn = cn
Theta f(n) = θ(g(n)) f(n) ≈ c g(n)
BigOh f(n) = O(g(n)) f(n) ≤ c g(n)
Omega f(n) = Ω(g(n)) f(n) ≥ c g(n)
Little Oh f(n) = o(g(n)) f(n) << c g(n)
Little Omega f(n) = ω(g(n)) f(n) >> c g(n)
Giving an idea of how fast a function grows

without going into too much detail.
3n2 + 7n + 8 = nθ(1)
Polynomial time
$ c1, c2, n0, " n ³ n0 nc1 £ f(n) £ nc2

3n n = 2[ log(3) n + log n ]
= 2θ(n)
Exponential time
$ c1, c2, n0, " n ³ n0 2c1n £ f(n) £ 2c2n

Computable Problem
A Computational Problem P states
• for each possible input I
• what the required output P(I) is.
Eg: Sorting
An Algorithm/Program/Machine M is
• a set of instructions
(described by a finite string “M”)
• on a given input I
• follow instructions and
• produces output M(I)
• or runs for ever.
Eg: Insertion Sort
Computable Problem
Problem P is
computable if
$M, "I, M(I)=P(I)
$M,“Machine/Algorithm M
computes problem P.”
"I, “Machine/Algorithm M
gives the answer required
by problem P on input I.”
M(I)=P(I)
Computable Problem
Problem P is
computable if
$M, "I, M(I)=P(I)
I have a machine M that I
claim works.
Oh yeah, I have an input I for
which it does not.
I win if M on input I gives
the correct output
What we have been doing all along.

Computable Problem
Problem P is
computable if
$M, "I, M(I)=P(I)
$M
I come up with this machine M
at compile time.
Without knowing the input!
It needs a finite description.
• Finite set of instructions
• Finite set of variables
• With finite ranges of values.
Computable Problem
Problem P is
computable if
$M, "I, M(I)=P(I)
"I
I choose the input I at run time
after I already know the machine M.
My input can be much bigger
than the machine.
Its computation may require
• a lot more memory to be allocated
dynamically.
• at lot more time.
Computable Problem
Problem P is
computable if
$M, "I, M(I)=P(I)
Here the P is considered

free because it is not
bounded by a quantifier.
Hence, the sentence says
something about P.
Computable Problem
Problem P is Problem P is
computable if uncomputable if
$M, "I, M(I)=P(I) "M, $I, M(I)  P(I)
I have a machine M that I
claim works.
I find one counter example
input I for which
his machine M fails us.
I win if M on input I gives

the wrong output
Generally very hard to do.
Computable Problem
true computable if uncomputable if true
$M, "I, M(I)=Sorting(I) "M, $I, M(I)  Halting(I)
"I, $M, M(I) = Halting(I)
REALY matters.
If you don’t know if it is

true or not, trust the
game.
Computable Problem
true computable if uncomputable if true
$M, "I, M(I)=Sorting(I) "M, $I, M(I)  Halting(I)
"I, $M, M(I) = Halting(I) true
I give you an input I.
Given I either
Halting(I) = yes or
A tricky Halting(I) = no.
one. "I, Myes(I) says yes
"I, Mno(I) says no
I don’t know which, but
one of these does the trick.
Time Complexity
• Problem P is computable in n2 time.
M, "I, M(I)=P(I) & Time(M,I)≤|I|2
• Problem P is not computable in n2 time.
M, [If M solves P]  [M takes > n2 time]
M, "I, [M(I)=P(I)]  [Time(M,I)>|I|2]
M, ["I M(I)=P(I)]  ["I Time(M,I)>|I|2]
No
Time Complexity
• Problem P is computable in n2 time.
M, "I, M(I)=P(I) & Time(M,I)≤|I|2
• Problem P is not computable in n2 time.
Just negate the above statement!
M, I, M(I)≠P(I) or Time(M,I)>|I|2)
Let M be any machine.
I find one counter example input I
for which his machine M fails us.
Either because it gives the wrong
answer or takes too much time.
Computable with Fixed Resources
Computable mean
that some algorithm
computes it.
Note that the number of line
in a print out of the code
does not actually depend on
the input
These are the types of things

we will be saying with our
first order logic statements.
Halting problem poly Math Truth
“TM M halts on input I”

=  C, “C is an integer encoding
a valid halting computation
for TM M on input I”
 “time t” “a legal TM
M step is taken”
Harder for 4111
Time Complexity
• Problem P is computable in polynomial time.
 M, c, n0,"I, M(I)=P(I) & (|I| < n0 or Time(M,I) ≤ |I|c)
• Problem P is not computable in polynomial time.
 M, c, n0,  I, M(I)≠P(I) or (|I| ≥ n0 & Time(M,I) > |I|c)
• Problem P is computable in exponential time.
 M, c, n0,"I, M(I)=P(I) & (|I| < n0 or Time(M,I) ≤ 2c|I|)
• The computational class “Exponential Time"
is strictly bigger than the computational
class “Polynomial Time”.
 P, [ M, c, n0,  I, M(I)≠P(I) or (|I| ≥ n0 & Time(M,I) > |I|c)]
& [ M, c, n 0 , " I, M(I)=P(I) & (|I| < n 0 or Time(M,I) ≤ 2 c|I|
)]
Church’s Thesis
A computational problem is computable
• by a Java Program
• by a Turing Machine
If a boy can do it, a girl can do it better.

If a Java program can do it,
Turing Machine can simulate it.
Church’s Thesis
A computational problem is computable
• by a Java Program
• by a Turing Machine
Why are these the

same?
Church’s Thesis
Why are these the

same?
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
Proof
End
Proof: $g, "b, Loves(b, g)
I produce girl MM.
Let b be an arbitrary boy.
I give an “alg” Sam Mary

with input b,
and output Bob Beth
a proof that Marilin
John
Loves(b,MM) Monro
Fred Ann
Let b be an arbitrary boy.
I give an “alg”
with input b,
and output an g
Sam Mary
and a proof that
Loves(b, g). Bob Beth
You give Sam, I give Beth. Marilin

John
You give Bob, I give MM. Monro
… Fred Ann
Proof: "b, Loves(b, MM)
I don’t like proving universal (")
statements by contradiction.
By way of Instead play the game.

contradiction assume
$b, ØLoves(b, MM) Sam Mary
Let b’ be the object
Bob Beth
that is assumed to
exist. Marilin
John
Prove Loves(b’,MM) Monro
Contradiction. Fred Ann
Negations: "bBoys, Loves(g)
What is the negation of this?
$bBoys, ØLoves(b, g)
No, we are still talking about
properties of the b
in the set Boys.
Negations: "x $yx, y=2x
What is the negation of this?
$x "y<x, y2x
$x "yx, y2x
No, we are still talking about
properties of the y
that are bigger than x.
"x, $y, x×y=1
"x>0, $y, x×y=1
How about
except for zero”
This does correctly express it.
But changing the range of x,
is more like 2nd order logic.
"x, $y, x×y=1
"x, [x0] and [$y, x×y=1]
How about
except for zero”
If you say "x,

then is x=0 a possibility.
"x, $y, x×y=1
"x, [x=0] or [$y, x×y=1]
How about
except for zero”
We need this statement true

for every value of x!
"x, $y, x×y=1
"x, [x=0] or [$y, x×y=1]
"x, $y, x=0 or x×y=1
How about
except for zero”
Usually we prefer the quantifiers

to be on the outside.
"x, $y, x×y=1
"x, [x=0] or [$y, x×y=1]
"x, $y, x=0 or x×y=1
$a, "x, $y, x=a or x×y=1
How about
except for zero”
"b, Loves(b, g)
“Every boy loves g”
b vs g?
b is a bound variable. g is a free variable.
(appears in  or ) (does not appear in  or )
The statement is about The statement is about g.
the set of all boys. Free variable
x=5 Object
loop i = 1..9 Bound variable
++x
end loop
"b, Loves(b, g)
g is a free variable.
(does not appear in  or )
A relation/predicate
• returns True/False The statement is about g.
• depending whether object
g has the property VeryLoved.
VeryLoved(g) = "b, Loves(b, g)
3n2 + 7n + 8 = θ(n2)
True
 c 1, c 2,  n 0,  n  n 0, c 1 g ( n )  f ( n )  c 2 g ( n )
3 4 8 n ³ 8 3·n2 £ 3n2 + 7n + 8 £ 4·n2
7n + 8 £ 1·n2
7 + 8/n £ 1·n
3n2 + 7n + 8 = θ(n2)
 c 1, c 2,  n 0,  n  n 0, c 1 g ( n )  f ( n )  c 2 g ( n )
3n2 + 7n + 8 = θ(n)
The reverse statement
 c 1, c 2,  n 0,  n  n 0, c 1 g ( n )  f ( n )  c 2 g ( n )
 c 1, c 2,  n 0,  n  n 0, c 1 g ( n )  f ( n ) o r f ( n )  c 2 g ( n )
AB Implications
• If A is true then B is true.
• This may because A causes B.
• The counter positive is B  A
because if B is not true, then A can’t be true
because otherwise B would be true.
Hence B may cause A.
• Or C may cause both A and B.
• Or maybe cause and effect is not involved at all.
• A ⇒ B formally means ¬(A and ¬B)
• Bring the negation in gives ¬A or B
If A is false, then the statement A ⇒ B follows.
If B is true, then A ⇒ B again follows.
Proof of A  B Implications
• Officially two cases.
ignore
• If A is false, then A ⇒ B is trivially true.
• If A is true, one must prove B.
• Indenting, pushing and popping stack.
• A proof consists of a sequence of statements
that follow from the initial assumptions.
• When we make the new assumption A,
indents the lines for the duration
of this new assumption.
• Then after B is proved,
this indenting “stack” is popped
with the conclusion that A ⇒ B.
Proof of A  B Implications
• Goal is to prove A ⇒ B.
• Assume that A is true.
• Goal is to prove B.
• ... proof of B.
• Hence B is true.
• Hence A ⇒ B is true.
Implications
Suppose you assume this is true:
S1: "x, P(x)
Then you know that P(x’) is true
for your favorite value x′.

S2: $y, Q(y)
Then you can ask for a y’
for which Q(y’) is true.
Implications
S3: "x, $y, R(x,y)
You can use it as an oracle.

If you have an x’, it gives you a y’.
“Let y’ be the value assumed to exist from S3
By definition of y’, we know that
R(x’,y’)
Implications
Quantifiers,
Do you understand them?
Express:
• Problem P is computable by some algorithm.
• Problem P is computable in time T(n).
“A(I)=P(I)"means algorithm A gives the required

output for problem P on instance I.
Time(A,I) is the running time of algorithm A
on instance I.
T(n) some function like n2.
The Time Complexity
The minimum time needed by an algorithm to solve it.
Upper Bound:
Problem P is computable in time Tupper(n)
if there is an algorithm A which
• outputs the correct answer
• in this much time
given any input instance I.
Eg: Sorting computable in Tupper(n) = O(n2) time.

The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
A(I)=P(I)
We need our algorithm A
to give the correct answer
to problem P
on input I
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
A(I)=P(I) Time(A,I) £ n2
We need it to run
in say n2 time.
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
A(I)=P(I) Time(A,I) £ nT2upper(|I|)
But what is n?
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
A(I)=P(I) and Time(A,I) £ Tupper(|I|)
Between these?
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
$A,
A(I)=P(I) and Time(A,I) £ Tupper(|I|)
What do we want from our
algorithm A?
Where does it come from?
I want to prove the statement is true.

I want the algorithm
to be one that works well,
so I will come up with it.
$A
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
$A,
"I, A(I)=P(I) and Time(A,I) £ Tupper(|I|)
input I?
I want to prove the statement is false. I

want the input to be the worst,
"I
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
$A,
"I, A(I)=P(I) and Time(A,I) £ Tupper(|I|)
Who goes first
and why?
I want one fixed algorithm

that works for every input,
so I should go first.
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
$A,
$A,"I,"I, A(I)=P(I) and Time(A,I) £ Tupper(|I|)
Who goes first
and why?
I want my input to be
the worst for his algorithm
so I should go second.
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
$A, "I, A(I)=P(I) and Time(A,I) £ Tupper(|I|)
problem P?
We are making a statement about P.

It comes our boss.
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
How does
the proof game go?
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
I have an algorithm A that I
claim works and is fast.
which it does not.
I win if A on input I gives
• the correct output
• in the allotted time.
What we have been doing all along.

The Time Complexity
Lower Bound:
Time Tlower(n) is a lower bound for problem p
if no algorithm solves the problem faster.
There may be algorithms that give the correct answer

or run quickly on some inputs instance.
The Time Complexity
Lower Bound:
Time Tlower(n) is a lower bound for problem p
if no algorithm solves the problem faster.
But for every algorithm, there is at least one

instance I for which either the algorithm gives
the wrong answer or it runs in too much time.
Eg: No algorithm can sort N values

in Tlower = sqrt(N) time.
The Time Complexity
Upper Bound:
Lower Bound:
"A, $I, A(I) ≠ P(I) or Time(A,I) ³ Tlower(|I|)
“There is"and “there isn’t a faster algorithm”

are almost negations of each other.
The Time Complexity
Lower Bound:
"A, $I, [ A(I)  P(I) or Time(A,I) ³ Tlower(|I|)]
How does
the proof game go?
The Time Complexity
Lower Bound:
which it does not .
I win if A on input I gives
• the wrong output or
• runs slow.
The Time Complexity
Lower Bound:
Lower bounds are very hard
to prove, because I must
consider every algorithm
no matter how strange.
The Time Complexity
 A, "I, A(I)=P(I) & Time(A,I) ≤ |I|c
 c,
Great, but which c?
I want to prove the statement is true

$c
Wow. That’s not fair.

A bigger c can always
make the statement true.
The Time Complexity
 A, c, "I, A(I)=P(I) & Time(A,I) ≤ |I|c
 c,
Who goes first
and why?
I will let him choose any c.

Even c=1000 if he wants.
But this fixed c must work for
all inputs.
So I should go second.
The Time Complexity
Who goes first

and why?
If he comes up with
a bigger c,
I will come up with
an even bigger I.
The Time Complexity
Time(A,I) ≤ |I|c
Does not apply for small I.
The Time Complexity
 A, c,n0,"I, A(I)=P(I) & (|I| < n0 or Time(A,I) ≤ |I|c)
What about n0?
Time(A,I) ≤ |I|c
Does not apply for small I.
The Time Complexity
 A, c, n0,"I, A(I)=P(I) & (|I| < n0 or Time(A,I) ≤ |I|c)
• Problem P is not computable in polynomial time.
 A, c, n0,  I, A(I)≠P(I) or (|I| ≥ n0 & Time(A,I) > |I|c)
• Problem P is computable in exponential time.
 A, c, n0,"I, A(I)=P(I) & (|I| < n0 or Time(A,I) ≤ 2c|I|)
 P, [ A, c, n0,  I, A(I)≠P(I) or (|I| ≥ n0 & Time(A,I) > |I|c)]
& [ A, c, n 0 ,"I, A(I)=P(I) & (|I| < n 0 or Time(A,I) ≤ 2c|I|
)]
Fixed/Constant vs Arbitrary/Finite
• Given the needs of the problem at hand,
• a programmer can give her Java program
• as many lines of code
• as many variables and
• as a big of a (finite) range for each variable
as she wants.
But these numbers are fixed/constant. Meaning:
• If K(J,I) is these numbers
program J has on input I,
then this function can depend on J,
but can’t depend on I (or on |I|)
• "computable problems P,
 a Java program J,  an integer k,
"inputs I,
K(J,I) = k
• Given the needs of the problem at hand,
• a programmer can give her Java program
• as many lines of code number of lines actually
• as many variables and used by J on I.
• as a big of a (finite) range for each variable
as she wants.
• If K(J,I) is these numbers
program J has on input I,
but can’t depend on I (or on |I|) K(J,I) does
• "computable problems P, depend on I.
"inputs I, Clearly J can’t use more lines

K(J,I) = k than the number k that it actually has.
Remember that we say that
f(n) = 5+sin(n)  (1)
because, though f(n) is not actually constant wrt n,
it is bounded above by a constant.

In a “bigOh” sort of way,
we might still say that
K(J,I) is a fixed/constant number.
"inputs I,
K(J,I)  k
I come up with a hard problem P
"inputs I,
K(J,I) = k
I write a Java program J
and give it some k lines of code.
I can use as MANY as I like.
1,000,000,000,000,000!
"inputs I,
K(J,I) = k
1,000,000,000,000,000!
Wow. That’s not fair.

With more and more code,
you can memorize
more and more answers.
"inputs I,
K(J,I) = k
1,000,000,000,000,000!
I will let him use any

number of lines he wants,
But this fixed J must work
for all inputs.
"inputs I,
K(J,I) = k
1,000,000,000,000,000!
If he uses more lines of code,

I will give him a bigger input I.
Hee Hee Hee
J must still solve the problem.
"inputs I,
K(J,I) = k
A similar statement
that speaks of all J,
even if not associated with a P.
• "computable problems P, " Java programs J,
 a Java program J,  an integer k,  an integer k,
"inputs I, "inputs I,
K(J,I) = k K(J,I) = k
• Given the input,
• a Java program,
• can dynamically allocated as many bytes of memory
as it wants.
• This number, though still finite, is not constant. Meaning:
• If K(J,I) is the number bytes
program J uses on input I,
and on I. (hence on |I|)
Careful will infinity.
There are more than one
 a Java program J,
infinities and some are
"inputs I,
in fact smaller than others.
K(J,I) < 
• a Java program,
as it wants.
In contrast, when we say
J(I) =  to mean J runs
forever, we are really using
"inputs I,
∞ as a symbol and not really
K(J,I) < 
as meaning it to be infinity.
• a Java program,
as it wants.
"inputs I,
 an integer k,
K(J,I) = k
I come up with a hard problem P
"inputs I,
 an integer k,
K(J,I) = k
I write a Java program J.
I don’t need to specify how many
bytes of memory k it will allocate.
Oops.
I now need to come up with
the input I before knowing this k.
"inputs I,
 an integer k,
K(J,I) = k
No problem.
If he gives me a bigger input I,
I will use even more memory!
"inputs I,
 an integer k,
K(J,I) = k
No problem.
If he gives me a bigger input I,
I will use even more memory!
Good thing he cannot increase

the number of lines of code
in the same way or else
• it would take infinite space
to write down the
algorithm
• such an algorithm could
solve any problem.
Home work
to do starting now
Home work
to do starting now
Home work
to do starting now
Home work
to do starting now
Home work
to do starting now
3.
If a boy can do it, a girl can do it better.

If a Java program can do it,
a Turing Machine can simulate it
Home work
to do starting now
Sam
Bob
One politician
John Layton
Fred
$politician, "voters, Loves(v, p)

"voters, $politician, Loves(v, p)
Sam
Bob Harper
Could be a
different politician. John Layton
Fred
Sam
“There is a politician that is loved by everyone.”
Bob
This statement is “about” a politician. John Layton
The existence of politician with some property. Fred
The property that he is “loved by every voter”.
[ "voters, Loves(v, p)]

$politician,
"voters,[$politician, Loves(v, p)]
Sam
Bob Harper
“Every voter loves some politician.”
John Layton
This statement is “about” voters.
Fred
Something is true about every voter.
We claim that he “loves some politician.”

First Order Logic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Order Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Order Logic

Predicates, Forall, & Exists

Well done. That is big!

But I choose a trillion trillion and one

You choose the size of your Java program.

“There exists a boy that loves Mary”

The difference? Sam Mary

Which variable is this statement about?:

Here the date is considered free variable

Which variable is this statement about?:

$ g is the left most quantifier. Hence,

Which variable is this statement about?:

"b is the left most quantifier. Hence,

Loves(b, g) “boy b loves girl g”.

"b, $g, Loves(b, g) John

Loves(b, g) “boy b loves girl g”.

$ g, Loves(b, g) “boy b loves some girl”.

I produce the object when it is a $.

Knowing you chose Bob,

I produce g = MM Bob Beth

Nope. b=John Marilin

I could only win

Knowing MM, I produce boy b.

Let x be an arbitrary real number.

The relation is true.

I can always win.

The order the players go

I can always win.

Again, I could only

Then x+y=x is true

Many students answer this.

The relation is true.

See there is my single y that

x×y  1 “y is not the multiplicative inverse of x”.

“Every real has an additive inverse "x, property(x)

“Every real has an additive inverse "x, $ y, x=0 or x×y=1

Let x be an arbitrary real number.

The relation is true.

I can always win.

Let y be an arbitrary real number.

The negated relation is true.

I can always win.

Let x be an arbitrary real number.

"M1w, $M1b, Black-Wins(M1w,M1b)

$M1w, "M1b, White-Wins(M1w,M1b)

See there is my single c that

The relation is false.

The order the players go

Giving an idea of how fast a function grows

$ c1, c2, n0, " n ³ n0 nc1 £ f(n) £ nc2

$ c1, c2, n0, " n ³ n0 2c1n £ f(n) £ 2c2n

What we have been doing all along.

Here the P is considered

I win if M on input I gives

If you don’t know if it is

These are the types of things

“TM M halts on input I”

If a boy can do it, a girl can do it better.

Why are these the

Why are these the

Let b be an arbitrary boy.

I give an “alg” Sam Mary