Advertisement

Studia Logica

, Volume 87, Issue 1, pp 37–50 | Cite as

Second-Order Quantifier Elimination in Higher-Order Contexts with Applications to the Semantical Analysis of Conditionals

  • Dov M. GabbayEmail author
  • Andrzej Szałas
Article

Abstract

Second-order quantifier elimination in the context of classical logic emerged as a powerful technique in many applications, including the correspondence theory, relational databases, deductive and knowledge databases, knowledge representation, commonsense reasoning and approximate reasoning. In the current paper we first generalize the result of Nonnengart and Szałas [17] by allowing second-order variables to appear within higher-order contexts. Then we focus on a semantical analysis of conditionals, using the introduced technique and Gabbay’s semantics provided in [10] and substantially using a third-order accessibility relation. The analysis is done via finding correspondences between axioms involving conditionals and properties of the underlying third-order relation.

Keywords

conditionals second-order quantifier elimination higher-order relations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackermann W. (1935) ‘Untersuchungen über das eliminationsproblem der mathematischen logik’. Mathematische Annalen 110 : 390–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgess J. (1981) ‘Quick completeness proofs for some logics of conditionals’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 22: 76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conradie, W., V. Goranko, and D. Vakarelov, ‘Algorithmic correspondence and completeness in modal logic. I: the core algorithm SQEMA’, Logical Methods in Computer Science, 2 (2006), 1:5, 1–26.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doherty P., Kachniarz J., Szałas A.(1999) ‘Meta-queries on deductive databases’. Fundamenta Informaticae 40 (1): 17–30Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doherty, P.,W. Łukaszewicz, A. Skowron, and A. Szałas, Knowledge representation techniques. A rough set approach, vol. 202 of Studies in Fuziness and Soft Computing, Springer-Verlag, 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doherty P., Łukaszewicz W., Szałas A. (1997) ‘Computing circumscription revisited’. Journal of Automated Reasoning 18 (3): 297–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doherty P., łukaszewicz W., Szałas A. (1998) ‘General domain circumscription and its effective reductions’. Fundamenta Informaticae 36 (1): 23–55Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doherty P., Łukaszewicz W., Szałas A. (1999) ‘Declarative PTIME queries for relational databases using quantifier elimination’. Journal of Logic and Computation 9 (5): 739–761Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gabbay, D. M., and H. J. Ohlbach, Quantifier ‘elimination in second-order predicate logic’, South African Computer Journal, 7(1992), 35–43. Also published in B. Nebel, C. Rich, W. R. Swartout, (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’92), Morgan Kaufmann, 1992, pp. 425–436.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gabbay D.M. (1972) ‘A general theory of the conditional in terms of a ternary operator’. Theoria 38: 97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabbay, D.M., R. Schmidt,and A. Szałas, Second-Order Quantifier Elimination: Mathematical Foundations, Computational Aspects and Applications, Kings College Publications. Studies in Logic Series, 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herzig, A., ‘SCAN and systems of condtional logic’, Research Report MPI-I-96-2007, Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kachniarz, J.,and A. Szałas, ‘On a static approach to verification of integrity constraints in relational databases’, in E. Orłowska, and A. Szałas, (eds.), Relational Methods for Computer Science Applications, Springer Physica-Verlag, 2001, pp. 97– 109.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewis, D.K, Counterfactuals, Blackwell, 1973.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lifschitz, V., ‘Circumscription’, in D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, (eds.), Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 991, pp. 297–352.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nonnengart, A., H. J. Ohlbach,and A. Szałas, ‘Elimination of predicate quantifiers’, in H. J. Ohlbach, and U. Reyle, (eds.), Logic, Language d Reasoning. Essays in Honor of Dov Gabbay, Part I, Kluwer, 1999, pp. 159–181.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nonnengart, A., and A. Szałas, ‘A fixpoint approach to second-order quantifier elimination with applications to correspondence theory’, in E. Orłowska, (ed.), Logic at Work: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Helena Rasiowa, vol. 24 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer Physica-Verlag, 1998, pp. 307–328.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orłowska, E., and A. Szałas, ‘Quantifier elimination in elementary set theory’, in W. MacCaull, M. Winter, and I. Duentsch, (eds.), Relational Methods in Computer Science, no. 3929 in LNCS, Springer, 2006, pp. 237–248.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simmons H. (1994) ‘The monotonous elimination of predicate variables’. Journal of Logic and Computation 4 : 23–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stalnaker, R.C., ‘A theory of conditionals’, in W.L. Harper, R.C. Stalnaker, and G. Pearce, (eds.), Ifs, D. Reidel, 1981, pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stalnaker R.C., Thomason R.M. (1970) ‘A semantic analysis of conditional logic’. Theoria 36 (1–3): 23–42Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Szałas A. (1993) ‘On the Correspondence between modal and classical logic: An automated approach’. Journal of Logic and Computation 3, 605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szałas A. (1994) ‘On an automated translation of modal proof rules into formulas of the classical logic’. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 4 : 119–127Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Benthem, J., Modal Logic and Classical Logic, Bibliopolis, Naples, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Benthem, J., ‘Correspondence theory ’, in D. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner, (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, D. Reidel Pub. Co., 1984, pp. 167–247.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s CollegeLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute of InformaticsUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Dept. of Comp. and Information SciUniversity of LinköpingLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations