Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T05:28:58.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Propositional theories are strongly equivalent to logic programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2007

PEDRO CABALAR  and
PAOLO FERRARIS
PEDRO CABALAR
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Corunna, Spain (e-mail: cabalar@udc.es)
PAOLO FERRARIS
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, USA (e-mail: otto@cs.utexas.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper presents a property of propositional theories under the answer sets semantics (called Equilibrium Logic for this general syntax): any theory can always be reexpressed as a strongly equivalent disjunctive logic program, possibly with negation in the head. We provide two different proofs for this result: one involving a syntactic transformation, and one that constructs a program starting from the countermodels of the theory in the intermediate logic of here-and-there.

Keywords

answer setsequilibrium logiclogic of here-and-therestrong equivalence

Information

Type
Technical Note
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 7 , Issue 6 , November 2007 , pp. 745 - 759
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

References

Bibel, W. and Eder, E. 1993. A survey of logical calculi. In The Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, 67–182.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2005. Reducing propositional theories in equilibrium logic to logic programs. In Proceedings of the 12th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence (EPIA'05). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3808. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 4–17.Google Scholar
Cabalar, P., Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2006. Minimal logic programs. Unpublished draft.Google Scholar
Ferraris, P. 2005. Answer sets for propositional theories. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraris, P. and Lifschitz, V. 2005. Weight constraints as nested expressions. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 5, 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable models semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyting, A. 1930. Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen Logik. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse, 42–56.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. and Sakama, C. 1998. Negation as failure in the head. Journal of Logic Programming 35 (1), 39–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jongh, D. D. and Hendriks, L. 2003. Characterization of strongly equivalent logic programs in intermediate logics. TPLP 3 (3), 259–270.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D. and Valverde, A. 2001. Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 526–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V., Tang, L. R. and Turner, H. 1999. Nested expressions in logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Woo, T. 1992. Answer sets in general nonmonotonic reasoning (preliminary report). In Proceedings of Third International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Nebel, B., Rich, C. and Swartout, W., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 603–614.Google Scholar
Lukasiewicz, J. 1941. Die logik und das grundlagenproblem. Les Entries de Zürich sur les Fondaments et la Méthode des Sciences Mathématiques 12, 6–9 (1938), 82–100.Google Scholar
McCluskey, E. J. 1956. Minimization of boolean functions. Bell System Technical Journal 35, 1417–1444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D. 1997. A new logical characterisation of stable models and answer sets. In Non monotonic extensions of logic programming. Proceedings of NMELP'96. (LNAI 1216). Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1952. The problem of simplifying truth functions. American Mathematical Monthly 59, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar