Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 193–208

Eliminating “converse” from converse PDL

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
Article

Abstract

In this paper we show that it is possible to eliminate the “converse” operator from the propositional dynamic logic CPDL (Converse PDL), without compromising the soundness and completeness of inference for it. Specifically we present an encoding of CPDL formulae into PDL that eliminates the converse programs from a CPDL formula, but adds enough information so as not to destroy its original meaning with respect to satisfiability, validity, and logical implication. Notably, the resulting PDL formula is polynomially related to the original one. This fact allows one to build inference procedures for CPDL, by encoding CPDL formulae into PDL, and then running an inference procedure for PDL.

Key words

Propositional dynamics logics logics of programs modal logics decision procedures 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Ben-Ari, J. Y. Halpern, and A. Pnueli. Deterministic propositional dynamics logic: finite models, complexity, and completeness, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 25:402–417, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. P. Blackburn and E. Spaan. A modal perspective on computational complexity of attribute value grammar. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2:129–169, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. G. De Giacomo. Decidability of Class-Based Knowledge Representation Formalisms. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. Boosting the correspondence between description logics and propositional dynamic logics. In Proceedings of the Twelth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), pages 205–212, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. What's in an aggregate: foundation for description logics with tuples and set. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pages 801–807, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. M. Fattorosi-Barnaba and F. De Caro. Graded modalities I. Studia Logica, 44:197–221, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. N. J. Fisher and R. E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 18:194–211, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. N. Friedman and J. Halpern. On the complexity of conditional logics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, page 202–213, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. G. Gargov and V. Goranko. Modal logic with names. Journal of Philosphical Logic, 22:607–636, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. J. Halpern and Y. Moses. A guide to completeness and complexity for modal logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54:319–379, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, pages 497–603. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. D. Kozen and J. Tiuryn. Logics of programs. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, pages 790–840. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. S. Passy and T. Tinchev. An essay in combinatory dynamic logic. Information and Computation, 93:263–332, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. V. R. Pratt. A practical decision method for propositional dynamic logic. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 326–337, 1978.Google Scholar
  15. V.R. Pratt. Models of program logics. In Proceedings of the 20th IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pages 115–122, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. V. R. Pratt. A near-optimal method for reasoning about action. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 20:231–255, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. K. Schild. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: preliminary report. In Proceedings of the Twelth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), pages 466–471, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. C. Stirling. Modal and temporal logic. In Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, pages 477–563. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. R. S. Streett. Propositional dynamic logic of looping and converse is elementary decidable. Information and Control, 54:121–141, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. J. Van Benthem and J. Bergstra. Logic of transition systems. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 3(4):247–283, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. J. Van benthem, J. Van Eijck, and V. Stebletsova. Modal logic, transition systems and processes. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):811–855, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. W. van der Hoek and M. de Rijke. Counting objects. Journal of Logic and Computation, 5(3):325–345, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppe De Giacomo
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversitá di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations