Unit – 3 LOGIC

1. Define propositional logic and explain its significance in logical reasoning. Provide
examples of a tautology, a contradiction, and a contingency.

2. Convert the following statements into propositional logic and determine their truth values:

o (A ∨ B) → C

o ¬A ∧ (B → C)

3. What is predicate logic, and how does it differ from propositional logic? Use examples to
illustrate quantifiers such as ∀ (universal) and ∃ (existential).

4. Translate the following statements into predicate logic:

o "All humans are mortal."

o "Some animals are herbivores."

Analyze their scope and logical meaning.

5. Explain the resolution principle in logical reasoning. How does it work in propositional logic
to deduce conclusions? Provide an example.

6. Use the resolution method to determine whether the following set of clauses is satisfiable:

o (A ∨ B)

o (¬A ∨ C)

o (¬B ∨ ¬C)

7. Describe how resolution works in predicate logic and how it extends the concepts of
resolution in propositional logic. Provide an example using quantifiers.

8. Use resolution in predicate logic to determine the validity of the following argument:

o Premises: "If it rains, the ground is wet." (Rain(x) → Wet(x)), "It is raining." (Rain(a))

o Conclusion: "The ground is wet." (Wet(a))

9. What is clause form, and why is it essential for the resolution method? Convert the
following formula into clause form:

o (A ∧ B) → C

o ¬(A ∨ ¬B) → C
(Descriptive/Application)

10. Explain the unification algorithm in predicate logic. How is it used in resolution? Illustrate
with an example where two predicate expressions are unified.

11. Perform unification for the following pairs of predicates:

o P(x, y) and P(a, z)

 o Q(x, f(y)) and Q(a, f(b))

1.Define propositional logic and explain its significance in logical reasoning. Provide examples
of a tautology, a contradiction, and a contingency.

Answer- Definition:
Propositional logic, also known as propositional calculus or sentential logic, is a branch of logic that
deals with propositions and their logical relationships. A proposition is a declarative statement that
is either true or false, but not both. Propositional logic uses logical connectives such as AND (∧), OR
(∨), NOT (¬), IMPLICATION (→), and BICONDITIONAL (↔) to combine or modify propositions.

Significance in Logical Reasoning:

1. Clarity in Arguments: Propositional logic provides a structured framework to evaluate the truth
or falsehood of statements, helping in constructing and analysing logical arguments.

2. Problem Solving: It is widely used in computer science, mathematics, and philosophy to solve
problems systematically.

3. Foundation for Computation: Propositional logic forms the basis of Boolean algebra, which
underpins digital circuits and computer algorithms.

4. Automated Reasoning: It enables the development of algorithms for tasks such as theorem
proving and artificial intelligence.

Examples:

1. Tautology:
A tautology is a proposition that is always true, regardless of the truth values of its individual
components.

Example:
(P∨¬P)
This states, "A proposition P or its negation ¬P is true," which is always true because either P is true,
or ¬P is true.

Truth Table for (P ∨ ¬P):

P ¬P P ∨ ¬P

T F T

F T T

The column for P∨¬P is always T.

 2. Contradiction:
A contradiction is a proposition that is always false, regardless of the truth values of its
components.

Example:
(P∧¬P) This states, "A proposition P and its negation ¬P are true simultaneously," which is
impossible.

Truth Table for (P ∧ ¬P):

P ¬P P ∧ ¬P

T F F

F T F

The column for P∧¬P is always F.

3. Contingency:
A contingency is a proposition whose truth value depends on the truth values of its components;
it is neither always true nor always false.

Example:
(P∨Q)
This states, "P or Q is true," and its truth depends on the truth values of P and Q.

Truth Table for (P ∨ Q):

P Q P∨Q

T T T

T F T

F T T

F F F

The truth of P∨Q depends on the values of P and Q.

2.Convert the following statements into propositional logic and determine their truth values:

o (A ∨ B) → C

o ¬A ∧ (B → C)

Answer- c 1. (A∨B)→C
Step 1: Break down the statement

• A∨B: Either Ais true, B is true, or both are true.

• (A∨B)→C : If A∨B is true, then C must also be true.

Truth table for (A∨B)→C:

A B C A∨B (A∨B)→C

T T T T T

T T F T F

T F T T T

T F F T F

F T T T T

F T F T F

F F T F T

F F F F T

Analysis:

• (A∨B)→C is false only when A∨B is true and C is false.

• In all other cases, it is true.

2. ¬A∧(B→C)

Step 1: Break down the statement

• ¬A: A is false.

• B→C: If B is true, then C must be true. If B is false, the statement is automatically true.

• ¬A∧(B→C): Both ¬A and B→C must be true.

Truth table for ¬A∧(B→C):

A B C ¬A B→C ¬A∧(B→C)

T T T F T F

T T F F F F

T F T F T F
 T F F F T F

F T T T T T

F T F T F F

F F T T T T

F F F T T T

Analysis:

• ¬A∧(B→C) is true only when A is false and B→C is true.

Final Results

1. For (A∨B)→C, the statement is true except when A∨B is true and C is false.

2. For ¬A∧(B→C), the statement is true only when A is false and B→C is true.

3.What is predicate logic, and how does it differ from propositional logic? Use examples to
illustrate quantifiers such as ∀ (universal) and ∃ (existential).

Answer- Predicate Logic-Predicate logic, also known as First-Order Logic (FOL), is an extension of
propositional logic that introduces the concepts of quantifiers, variables, and relations. It allows for
more expressive representations of statements about objects and their properties or relationships.

In predicate logic, statements are expressed using:

1. Predicates: Functions that represent properties or relationships (e.g., Likes(x, y) means "x likes
y").

2. Variables: Represent objects (e.g., x, y).

3. Quantifiers: Specify the scope of variables:

o ∀ (Universal Quantifier): Means "for all."

o ∃ (Existential Quantifier): Means "there exists."

Propositional Logic

Propositional logic deals with propositions, which are declarative statements that are either true or
false. It lacks the ability to express relationships or generalities about objects.

Differences Between Predicate Logic and Propositional Logic

Aspect Predicate Logic Propositional Logic

Basic Unit Predicates and quantifiers Propositions (atomic or compound)

 Expressiveness Can represent relationships and Limited to specific, concrete
generalities statements

Variables Uses variables to represent objects Does not use variables

Quantifiers Supports ∀ (universal) and ∃ (existential) Does not support quantifiers

Example ∀x (Human(x) → Mortal(x)) P ∧ Q (where P and Q are fixed

statements)

Examples to Illustrate Quantifiers

1. Universal Quantifier (∀)

o Statement: "All humans are mortal."

o Predicate Logic Representation:

∀x(Human(x)→Mortal(x))

This means that for every object x, if x is a human, then x is mortal.

o Propositional Logic Limitation: Cannot generalize. You would need individual

propositions like:

P1: Socrates is mortal,P2:Plato is mortal

Existential Quantifier (∃)

o Statement: "Some students love mathematics."

o Predicate Logic Representation:

∃x(Student(x)∧Loves(x,Mathematics))

This means there exists at least one object x such that x is a student and loves mathematics.

o Propositional Logic Limitation: Cannot express existence directly. You would need
individual propositions like:

P1:Alice loves mathematics,P2:Bob loves mathematics

Advantages of Predicate Logic Over Propositional Logic

1. Expressiveness: Predicate logic can represent statements about an infinite number of objects
compactly, while propositional logic requires explicit enumeration.

2. Flexibility: Predicate logic can describe relationships, which propositional logic cannot.

3. Applications: Predicate logic is widely used in mathematics, computer science (e.g., databases,
AI), and formal verification systems.

Conclusion
While propositional logic is simpler and suitable for representing fixed truth values, predicate logic offers
the tools to represent more complex, generalized statements about objects and their relationships. The
use of quantifiers makes predicate logic a powerful framework for logical reasoning.

4.Translate the following statements into predicate logic:

o "All humans are mortal."

o "Some animals are herbivores."

Analyze their scope and logical meaning.

Answer-

1. "All humans are mortal."

o Let:

▪ H(x): x is a human.

▪ M(x): x is mortal.

o Logical representation: ∀x (H(x)→M(x))

o Explanation:
This statement asserts that for every entity x, if x is a human (H(x)), then x is mortal
(M(x)).

o Scope:
The universal quantifier ∀x applies to all entities in the domain of discourse, which
includes every possible individual (not just humans). The statement ensures that every
human is mortal, without making any claims about non-humans.

2. "Some animals are herbivores."

o Let:

▪ A(x): x is an animal.

▪ H(x): x is a herbivore.

o Logical representation: ∃x (A(x)∧H(x))

o Explanation:
This statement asserts that there exists at least one entity x such that x is an animal
(A(x)) and x is a herbivore (H(x)).

o Scope:
The existential quantifier ∃x limits the claim to at least one member of the domain of
discourse. It does not specify how many animals are herbivores, nor does it make
claims about non-herbivore animals.

Logical Meaning and Analysis

1. "All humans are mortal":

 o This is a universally quantified statement (∀x\forall x), meaning it applies to every
individual in the universe of discourse.

o It expresses a rule or generalization: if xxx satisfies the condition of being human (H(x)), it
necessarily satisfies the condition of being mortal (M(x)).

o The statement is valid if there are no counterexamples (humans who are not mortal).

2. "Some animals are herbivores":

o This is an existentially quantified statement (∃x\exists x), meaning it asserts the

existence of at least one individual in the universe of discourse that satisfies both
predicates (A(x) and H(x)).

o The statement does not imply that all animals are herbivores; it merely guarantees the
existence of one or more such animals.

Key Differences in Scope and Logical Implications

• Universal Quantifier (∀\forall): Applies to all members of the domain and represents general
rules or truths. Example: "All humans are mortal" is universally true if no human can escape
mortality.

• Existential Quantifier (∃\exists): Applies to at least one member of the domain and represents
specific instances or cases. Example: "Some animals are herbivores" means that herbivory is
observed in at least one animal but does not generalize to all animals.

By combining these logical tools, we can represent complex real-world assertions in a precise
mathematical framework. This helps in logical reasoning, AI, and formal proofs.

5.Explain the resolution principle in logical reasoning. How does it work in propositional logic to
deduce conclusions? Provide an example.

Answer- Resolution Principle in Logical Reasoning

The resolution principle is a fundamental inference rule used in logical reasoning to deduce conclusions.
It is extensively applied in propositional logic and predicate logic, particularly in automated theorem
proving and reasoning systems.

Key Concepts of Resolution Principle

1. Definition:
The resolution principle is a refutation-based proof method. It works by repeatedly resolving two
clauses containing complementary literals to produce a new clause. If this process eventually
yields an empty clause (indicating a contradiction), the initial set of clauses is unsatisfiable.

2. Complementary Literals:
Complementary literals are pairs of literals, one positive and one negative (e.g., AAA and ¬A\neg
A).
 3. Clause Form:
To apply the resolution principle, all logical statements must first be converted into Conjunctive
Normal Form (CNF), which is a conjunction of disjunctions of literals. For example:
(A∨B)∧(¬A∨C)

Steps in the Resolution Process

1. Convert to CNF:
Ensure all statements are expressed in clause form. This involves eliminating implications and
biconditionals, moving negations inward, and using distributive laws.

2. Identify Complementary Literals:

Find clauses that contain a literal L and its negation ¬L\neg L

3. Resolve Clauses:
Combine the two clauses by removing the complementary literals and forming a new clause
containing the remaining literals.

4. Repeat Until Contradiction or No New Clauses:

If an empty clause (∅\emptyset) is derived, it indicates the original set of clauses is unsatisfiable.

Example: Resolution in Propositional Logic

Problem Statement:
Prove that the following set of clauses is unsatisfiable:

1. A∨B

2. ¬A∨C

3. ¬B

4. ¬C

Step 1: Convert to CNF

The given clauses are already in CNF.

Step 2: Apply Resolution

• From (A∨B), resolve to derive A:

A∨B,¬B⇒A.

• From A and (¬A∨C) , resolve to derive C :

A,¬A∨C⇒C.

• From CCC and ¬C\neg C¬C, resolve to derive an empty clause:

C,¬C⇒∅.
Step 3: Conclusion
The derivation of the empty clause (∅\emptyset) indicates a contradiction. Therefore, the original set of
clauses is unsatisfiable.

Applications of Resolution Principle

1. Automated Theorem Proving:

Used in logic solvers and AI systems to prove or disprove statements.

2. Knowledge Representation:
Helps in deducing new knowledge from a given set of facts and rules in knowledge bases.

3. Problem Solving:
Resolution is used in systems requiring logical reasoning, such as SAT solvers and reasoning
engines.

Advantages of Resolution Principle

• It provides a systematic and mechanical way to deduce conclusions.

• It is complete for propositional and predicate logic, meaning it can find a proof if one exists.

Limitations

• The resolution method can be computationally expensive for large or complex systems.

• It requires all statements to be converted to CNF, which can increase the size of the
representation.

6.Use the resolution method to determine whether the following set of clauses is satisfiable:

o (A ∨ B)

o (¬A ∨ C)

o (¬B ∨ ¬C)

Answer- bGiven Clauses

1. A∨B

2. ¬A∨C

3. ¬B∨¬C

Step-by-Step Resolution Process

Step 1: Convert clauses to Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF)

The clauses are already in CNF (disjunction of literals), so no further conversion is required.
Step 2: Assume negation of the desired outcome

To determine satisfiability, assume that the clauses together lead to a contradiction.

Step 3: Apply the Resolution Rule

We resolve the clauses iteratively until either:

1. We derive an empty clause (indicating a contradiction, so the set is unsatisfiable).

2. No further resolutions are possible (indicating satisfiability).

Step 4: Perform Resolutions

1. Resolve Clause 1 (A∨B) with Clause 2 (¬A∨C):

Using A and ¬A:
B∨C (New Clause)

2. Resolve Clause 3 (¬B∨¬C) with the new clause (B∨C):

Using B and ¬B:
C∨¬C

C∨¬C is always true (tautology), so it does not lead to any new information.

Step 5: Analyze the Result

• The resolution process does not lead to an empty clause.

• Since no contradiction is found, the set of clauses is satisfiable.

7.Describe how resolution works in predicate logic and how it extends the concepts of
resolution in propositional logic. Provide an example using quantifiers.

Answer- Introduction to Resolution

Resolution is a rule of inference used for automated theorem proving and logical reasoning. In
propositional logic, it simplifies logical formulas by eliminating variables to deduce conclusions.
Predicate logic extends this concept by incorporating quantifiers (∀,∃\forall, \exists∀,∃) and predicates,
making it more expressive and powerful for reasoning about relationships and properties.

Resolution in Propositional Logic

In propositional logic, the resolution method works by:

1. Converting all formulas to Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF).

2. Applying the resolution rule:

If A∨B and ¬A∨C are two clauses, the resolution rule deduces B∨C.
Example:
Given:

1. P∨Q

2. ¬P∨R

Resolution Step: Resolving P and ¬P, we get Q∨R.

Extensions to Predicate Logic

In predicate logic, resolution involves predicates, variables, and quantifiers. The process includes
additional steps to handle variable substitution and quantifiers:

1. Standardize Variables: Rename variables to ensure uniqueness across all predicates to avoid
conflicts during unification.

2. Convert to Clause Form:

o Eliminate implications (P→Q≡¬P∨Q).

o Move all quantifiers to the left (prenex normal form).

o Eliminate existential quantifiers using Skolemization (replacing ∃x with a constant or

function).

o Convert to CNF by distributing ∧ over ∨.

3. Unification: Use the unification algorithm to make terms identical. This involves finding a
substitution that makes two predicates identical.

4. Resolution: Apply the resolution rule on unified predicates to deduce new clauses.

Example Using Quantifiers

Problem: Prove that ∃x(Human(x)∧Mortal(x)) follows from the premises:

1. ∀x(Human(x)→Mortal(x))

2. Human(Socrates)

Solution:

1. Convert to Clause Form:

o Premise 1: ∀x(¬Human(x)∨Mortal(x))→ Clause: ¬Human(x)∨Mortal(x).

o Premise 2: Human(Socrates)

2. Unification: Substitute for x in ¬Human(x)∨Mortal(x):

¬Human(Socrates)∨Mortal(Socrates).

3. Resolution:
From:

o ¬Human(Socrates)∨Mortal(Socrates)
 o Human(Socrates).

Resolve Human(Socrates) and ¬Human(Socrates), deducing Mortal(Socrates).

4. Conclusion: Mortal(Socrates) proves ∃x(Human(x)∧Mortal(x)).

Advantages of Predicate Logic Resolution

• Expressiveness: Handles complex statements involving quantifiers and relationships.

• Generality: Applicable to a wide range of problems in automated reasoning.

• Precision: Combines logical inference with structured data representation.

8.Use resolution in predicate logic to determine the validity of the following argument:

o Premises: "If it rains, the ground is wet." (Rain(x) → Wet(x)), "It is raining." (Rain(a))

o Conclusion: "The ground is wet." (Wet(a))

Answer- Clearly defines resolution as a rule of inference used to determine argument validity.

• Explains the core principle of deriving a contradiction from the negation of the conclusion and
premises.

2. Given Premises and Conclusion:

• Premises:

o If it rains, the ground is wet. (Symbolically: Rain(x) → Wet(x))

o It is raining. (Symbolically: Rain(a))

• Conclusion:

o The ground is wet. (Symbolically: Wet(a))

3. Conversion to Clause Form:

• Premise 1:

o Implication is eliminated using the equivalence: (P → Q) ≡ (¬P ∨ Q).

o The clause form is: ¬Rain(x) ∨ Wet(x)

• Premise 2:

o The clause form is: Rain(a)

• Negation of the Conclusion:

o ¬Wet(a)

4. Resolution:
 • Step 1:

o Unification: Substitute x with a in Premise 1.

o Resulting clause: ¬Rain(a) ∨ Wet(a)

o Resolution with Premise 2 (Rain(a)):

▪ The literal Rain(a) cancels out, leaving Wet(a).

• Step 2:

o Resolution of Wet(a) with the negated conclusion ¬Wet(a):

▪ Contradiction (⊥) is derived.

Conclusion: The resolution proof successfully demonstrates the validity of the argument. By deriving a
contradiction from the negation of the conclusion and the given premises, it proves that the conclusion
logically follows from the premises.

9.What is clause form, and why is it essential for the resolution method? Convert the following
formula into clause form:

o (A ∧ B) → C

o ¬(A ∨ ¬B) → C

Answer - Clause Form and Its Importance for the Resolution Method

Clause Form: A clause is a disjunction (OR) of literals. A literal is either an atomic formula (a predicate
symbol with arguments) or the negation of an atomic formula. Clause form is a normal form in logic
where formulas are represented as a set of clauses.

Why Clause Form is Essential for Resolution: Resolution is a proof procedure that operates on
clauses. It relies on the specific structure of clauses to identify complementary literals and derive new
clauses. By converting formulas into clause form, we can apply resolution rules systematically to
determine the logical consequences of the given formulas.

Converting Formulas to Clause Form:

Formula 1: (A ∧ B) → C

1. Implication Elimination:

o (A ∧ B) → C is equivalent to ¬(A ∧ B) ∨ C.

2. De Morgan's Law:

o ¬(A ∧ B) ∨ C is equivalent to (¬A ∨ ¬B) ∨ C.

3. Clause Form:

o The formula is now in clause form:

▪ ¬A ∨ ¬B ∨ C

Formula 2: ¬(A ∨ ¬B) → C

1. Implication Elimination:
 o ¬(A ∨ ¬B) → C is equivalent to (A ∨ ¬B) ∨ C.

2. Clause Form:

o The formula is already in clause form:

▪ A ∨ ¬B ∨ C

10.Explain the unification algorithm in predicate logic. How is it used in resolution? Illustrate
with an example where two predicate expressions are unified.

Answer- Unification Algorithm in Predicate Logic and its Use in Resolution

Unification is a key concept in predicate logic, particularly in the process of resolution. It is a technique
used to make two logical expressions identical by finding a substitution for variables within the
expressions. Unification is crucial in automated reasoning systems, such as theorem proving, where the
goal is to determine if two logical expressions can be made the same through variable substitution.

1. What is Unification?

In predicate logic, unification is the process of finding a substitution (a mapping of variables to terms)
that makes two logical expressions (or terms) identical. This process involves replacing variables in the
terms with constants, functions, or other variables to make both terms the same.

Key Elements of Unification:

• Variables: Placeholders that can be substituted by constants, functions, or other variables.

• Constants: Fixed, unchanging values (e.g., John, 3).

• Functions: Operations that can be applied to terms (e.g., father(John)).

• Terms: A general expression that could include constants, functions, and variables.

2. Unification in Resolution:

In the context of resolution, unification plays a central role in the process of deducing new clauses from
existing ones. When we apply resolution between two clauses, unification is used to find a substitution
that makes the literals in the clauses compatible (i.e., makes them identical). Once unification is
performed, the literals are combined to produce a new clause.

For example, in propositional logic, we resolve two clauses like:

• A∨B

• ¬A ∨ C

The unification process would substitute A with ¬A and combine the resulting literals to produce the
resolvent.

In predicate logic, the process is more complex due to the presence of functions and variables. The
unification algorithm will find a substitution that makes the predicates in the two clauses identical.

3. Unification Algorithm:

The unification algorithm works as follows:

Steps for Unification:

1. Compare the two terms (or predicates) to be unified:

o If they are identical, the unification succeeds.

o If one of them is a variable, substitute it with the other term.

o If both are functions, check if their names match, and recursively unify their arguments.

o If neither of the above applies, the unification fails.

2. Apply the substitution: Once a successful unification is found, apply the substitution (a
mapping from variables to terms) to the original terms.

3. Check for conflicts: If a variable is substituted with a term that contains the same variable, a
conflict arises (e.g., x should be substituted by f(x)), and unification fails.

4. Example of Unification:

Let’s take two predicates and unify them:

• Predicate 1: P(x, y)

• Predicate 2: P(a, z)

Unification Process:

• First, compare the two predicates: P(x, y) and P(a, z).

• The function symbols P are identical, so now we focus on unifying the arguments:

o x can be unified with a, so we substitute x with a.

o y can be unified with z, so we substitute y with z.

Thus, the unification substitution would be:

• x→a

• y→z

The unified terms are now P(a, z) in both predicates.

Substituted Expression:

After applying the substitution, both predicates become:

• P(a, z)

This demonstrates a successful unification, where the two predicate expressions have been made
identical through the substitution of variables.

5. Unification Example in Resolution:

Now, consider a scenario where unification is used in predicate logic resolution:

• Clause 1: ¬P(x) ∨ Q(x)

• Clause 2: P(a) ∨ R(y)

We want to apply the resolution rule to eliminate the complementary literals P(x) and ¬P(x).

Unification Process:

• The literals ¬P(x) from Clause 1 and P(a) from Clause 2 need to be unified.

• ¬P(x) can be unified with P(a) by substituting x with a.

Thus, the substitution is:

• x→a

After Unification:

• Clause 1 becomes: ¬P(a) ∨ Q(a)

• Clause 2 becomes: P(a) ∨ R(y)

Now, applying the resolution rule on ¬P(a) and P(a), we combine the remaining literals:

• Resolvent: Q(a) ∨ R(y)

This new clause (Q(a) ∨ R(y)) is the result of applying unification and resolution.

6. Conclusion:

Unification is a powerful mechanism in predicate logic that allows for variable substitutions to make two
expressions identical. It plays a crucial role in resolution, a technique used to derive new logical
expressions (or clauses) from existing ones, particularly in automated reasoning and theorem proving.
The unification process ensures that the literals in the clauses are compatible, and once unified, the
resulting clauses can be used to generate new information or prove logical statements.

11.Perform unification for the following pairs of predicates:

o P(x, y) and P(a, z)

o Q(x, f(y)) and Q(a, f(b))

Answer – 1. Unification of P(x, y) and P(a, z)

We are given two predicates:

• P(x, y)

• P(a, z)

To unify these two predicates, we need to compare their structure. Notice that both predicates have the
same function P but with different arguments.

• P(x, y) has x and y as arguments.

• P(a, z) has a and z as arguments.

Step-by-step Process for Unification:

• First argument comparison:

We compare x with a. Since a is a constant and x is a variable, the unification would require x to
 be substituted with a. So, we have:
x→a

• Second argument comparison:

We compare y with z. Since both y and z are variables, they can be unified by substituting y with
z. So, we have:
y→z

Unified Substitution:

• x→a

• y→z

Thus, the unification for P(x, y) and P(a, z) is:

• The substitution is: {x → a, y → z}

• The unification succeeds and the predicates are unified.

2. Unification of Q(x, f(y)) and Q(a, f(b))

Now, let's unify the two predicates:

• Q(x, f(y))

• Q(a, f(b))

Step-by-step Process for Unification:

• First argument comparison:

We compare x with a. Since a is a constant and x is a variable, the unification would require x to
be substituted with a. So, we have:
x→a

• Second argument comparison (complex term):

Now, we compare f(y) with f(b). These are both function terms with the same function symbol f,
but the arguments differ (y vs b). For these to unify, we must substitute y with b, as b is a
constant and y is a variable. So, we have:
y→b

Unified Substitution:

• x→a

• y→b

Thus, the unification for Q(x, f(y)) and Q(a, f(b)) is:

• The substitution is: {x → a, y → b}

• The unification succeeds and the predicates are unified.