/3 -a L.

t-t"n 4'

RESOLUTION

METHOD,

MFCS

-2010,

Mihaiela Lupea

Resolution proof method in propositional logic

introduced by Robinson in 1965;

- is a syntactic and refutation proof method;

- aim: to check the consistency/inconsistency of a set of clauses.

Resolution method
Re s =

formal(axiomatic) system for propositional logic

, RR", ) ,

(IR., , FR", , lR.,

where.

' .

xR." ->P -{-+,<>,n}- the alPhabet;

FRe, u

{r} - the set of well formed formulas;

- the set of all clauses built using the alphabet

' .

FR",

)p"",

n - the empty clause, does not contain any literal, it symbolizes

inconsistency;

AR",
RRe,

=a

the set of axioms

={res)- the set of inference rules containing the resoiution rule

(res): -f ul,gv-ll-r"r.f vg, where / is a literal and .f ,g.FR.r.

lf C1 =.f v/ and C2=gv-l , C1,C2 are called clashing c/auses

and

they resolve upon the literal 1. We use the

and

notation.
C1

C=Res(C1,C2)=.f u g, where C is called the resolvenf of the clauses

C2. CI,C2 are called parent c/auses.

ln the particular case: C1=l and C2=-/, Resl(C1,C2)=

which is inconsistent.
Graph ical representation
:

(empty clause)

91

=fvt

C2- gv

-l

C2=

-l

C=Resr(C1,C2)r= -f

Res(Cl ,C2)=

RESOLUTION

METHOD,

MFCS

-2010,

Mihaiela Lupea

Resolution as an inference rule is

a generalization of the rules:

modus

ponens, modus tollens and the syllogism rule.

Modus ponens rule:

form: p,-p v
Q I-

P,P)Ql-,, Q can be written in the equivalent

.o q , which is a particularization of resolution rule.

.
|
p

Modus tollens rule (A3 axiom):

(p -> q) -> (-q

+ -p)-=>

(the reverse of the theorem of deduction)

-) ql- -q

-+

-p

-=> (the reverse of the theorem of deduction)

+ q.-Q l- -P --z
---- a particularization of resolution rule.

-pvQ,-Q1--p

.
|
p

Syllogism rule'.
(p -+ q) -> ((q + r) -+ (p -+

r)) --> (the reverse of the theorem of deduction)

+ ql- (q -+ r) -+ (p -+ r) -=> (the reverse of the theorem of deduction)

==> ---- a particularization of resolution rule

p )q-q ,,'l p-)t'

-pvq,-Qvri-pvr

The resolution method consists of successive applications of the resolution

rule upon an initial set of clauses, enriched in this process with new
clauses (resolvents), in order to derive the empty clause (inconsistency).

lf the empty clause cannot be derived, then the initial set of clauses is
consistent.

RESOLUTION

METHOD,

MFCS

-2Q10,

Mihaiela Lupea

Resolution procedure for propositional logic:

lnput. S - a set of clauses output. message "S is consistent" or "S is inconsistent"
begin

sg::s
i:=
0

do{
choose two clashing clauses:
C1,

C2 e S,

C:: Res(Cl,CZ)
S,*r t= S,

u {C}
else ;:=i+7

if(C=r) then write "S is inconsistent"; exit

endif

) until ( S, = S,-, ) // cannot be derived new clauses

write "S is consistent"
end

Theorem of soundness: lf the empty clause is derived from the set S of

clauses using the resolution procedure, then S is an inconsistent set.

lf

,S

l-R."

then S inconsistent.

Theorem of completness: lf the set S of clauses is inconsistent, then the

empty clause can be derived from S using resolution procedure.

lf

is inconsistent then

Fn."

tr.

Theorem of soundness and completeness:

A set s of clauses is inconsistent if and only if S l-n""

!.

RESOLUTION

METHOD,

MFCS

-2010,

Mihaieta Lupea

is a tautology if and only if the empty clause can be derived from the conjunctive normal form of --U,
using the resolution procedure.

Theorem 1: A propositional formula

u is a tautology

(theorem) iff Ct/F(-U)l-n.,

D.

Theorem 2: Llt,(12,...,(Jnl=v (equivalent with IJt,(/2,...,un1*v) it and only if

CNF(Ut n(J,

n...AU, n-V)l-n.,!.

Example 1: Using the resolution method prove that the following set of
clauses is inconsistent.
S={p v Q ,-pv 4, py -Q t-pv -q}. We denote the clauses as: C1= p, q,C2=-pv Q, C3=

pv -Q, C4=-pv -Q.

The process of deriving the empty clause is symbolized using a binary tree as follows:

C1:pvq

C2:-pv

C7= Re so (C5,C6)=

F*." n and

according to the theorem of soundness we have that

is

inconsistent.

RESOLUTION

METHOD.

MFCS

-2010.

Mihaieta Lupea

Theorem

3: A set s of

crauses can be simplified, preserving the

consistency/inconsistency, by applying the following transformations:

1. Delete the clauses that are tautologies (contain at least a pair

opposite literals).
QXt

of

-py -QV rv p

is a tautology,

-p,pafa opposite literals

2. Delete the clauses subsumed by other clauses of s. C1 is subsumed by C2 or C2 subsumes Cl tf there exists a clause
C3 such that C1=C2vC3.
Ex: C1=t

v --q v r v p, C2=rv p,

C1 is subsumed by C2, C2 subsumes C1 and C3= t v _,q

This transformation is based on the absorption property:
C2

^C1=C2

n(C2" C3) =C2.

3. Delete every clause containin g a pure literal.

A

pure literalis a literal that appears in a clause of s, but its

negation does not appear in any clause of S.

Ex: S={ C1=-py-Qy

r, C2=rv p, C3=-pv-r}

--q is a pure literal in S and C1 will be deleted.

4. Let G= / be a unit clause of s. Delete every clause containing

and delete

-/

from every remaining clause.

ex: S= { Ct= -pv -Qv r , C2=rv p, C3=-pv

C4 is a unit clause

-r,

C4= q}

S'-{ Ct'=-pv r , C2= rv p , C3=-pv -r} is obtained.

Remark: lf we obtain

after we apply all the above transformations on a

set S of clauses, then S is a consistent set.

RESOLUTION

METHOD,

MFCS

-2010,

Mihaieta Lupea

Example 2: Using the previous transformations simplify the following set of clauses 5={C1=-py pvr,C2=/.y--t/, C3= pv q,C4=pv qvr}.
- C4 is subsumed by C3 so C4 will be eliminated. - C1 and C2 are tautologies and they will be eliminated.

- Only C3 remains but it contains two pure literals: p and q and it will be
eliminated too.

After we apply the transformations, consistent set.

s becomes s'= a

and thus

is a

Exampfe 3: Simplify the set S={C 1=--q ,C2= q ,C3= p v q v r}. C3 is subsumed by C2 and is eliminated. lf we apply transformation 4, c2 is a unit clause, c2 is eliminated and c1 becomes C1'= r after the literal -rq is deleted.

After simplification,
inconsistent set.

becomes g'={r} and we conclude that

is an