Consider the following equation that defines the conditions under which a square is breezy in the Wumpus World:∀ x,y Breezy(x, y) ⇔ ∃ u,v Adjacent(u, v, x, y) ∧ Pit(u, v).Here we consider two other ways to describe this aspect of the Wumpus World. We can write diagnostic rulesleading from observed effects to hidden causes. For finding pits, the obvious diagnostic rules say that if a square is breezy, some adjacent square must contain a pit; and if a square is not breezy, then no adjacent square contains a pit. Write these two rules in first-order logic and show that their conjunction is logically equivalent to equation above. We can write causal rulesleading from cause to effect. One obvious causal rule is that a pit causes all adjacent squares to be breezy. Write this rule in first-order logic, explain why it is incomplete compared to equation above, and supply the missing axiom.

Consider the following equation that defines the conditions under which a square is breezy in the Wumpus World: ∀ x,y Breezy(x, y) ⇔ ∃ u,v Adjacent(u, v, x, y) ∧ Pit(u, v). Here we consider two other...

Consider the following equation that defines the conditions under which a square is breezy in the Wumpus World:

∀
x,y Breezy(x, y)
⇔

∃
u,v Adjacent(u, v, x, y)
∧
Pit(u, v).

Here we consider two other ways to describe this aspect of the Wumpus World.

We can write diagnostic rulesleading from observed effects to hidden causes. For finding pits, the obvious diagnostic rules say that if a square is breezy, some adjacent square must contain a pit; and if a square is not breezy, then no adjacent square contains a pit. Write these two rules in first-order logic and show that their conjunction is logically equivalent to equation above.

We can write causal rulesleading from cause to effect. One obvious causal rule is that a pit causes all adjacent squares to be breezy. Write this rule in first-order logic, explain why it is incomplete compared to equation above, and supply the missing axiom.

Jun 10, 2022