Advertisement

Proof-theory for extensions of Logic Programming

  • Catholijn M. JonkerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1050)

Abstract

The focus of this paper lies on the proof-theory for extensions of Logic Programming in which it is possible to draw negative conclusions both in a direct (i.e., based on a proof) and in an indirect (i.e., based on the lack of a proof) way. These extensions are provided with a rule-based deductive system in the sense of the work of Jäger [4] for Normal Logic Programs. Rule-based deductive systems can be used as a powerful tool to study the structural properties of the logic programming languages. Furthermore, in the deductive systems the fundamental semantical properties of the languages can be formalised by proof-rules of the systems. Therefore, different extensions of logic programming can be compared by comparing their deductive systems.

Keywords

Rule-based calculus negations program completions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K.R. Apt and R.N. Bol. Logic programming and negation: a survey. Technical Report Report CS-R9402, January 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.D. Belnap. A useful four-valued logic. In J.M. Dunn and G. Epstein, editors, Modern uses of Multiple-valued Logic, pages 8–37. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1977. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Logic programs with classical negation. In D.H.D. Warren and P. Szeredi, editors, 7th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 579–597. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Jäger. A deductive approach to logic programming. In H. Schwichtenberg, editor, Proof and Computation, pages 133–172. 1994. Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, NATO Advanced Study Institute.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Jäger and R. Stärk. A proof-theoretic framework for logic programming. In S. Buss, editor, Handbook of Proof Theory. To appear.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.M. Jonker. Constraints and Negations in Logic Programming. PhD thesis, Dept. of Philosophy, Utrecht University, 1994. Quaestiones Infinitæ vol. 10, Dissertation.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.M. Jonker. Rule-based calculi for extensions of logic programming. Technical Report IAM 95-006, Institut für Informatik und angewandte Mathematik, Universität Bern, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.A. Kowalski and F. Sadri. Logic programs with exceptions. In D.H.D. Warren and P. Szeredi, editors, Logic Programming, Proceedings 7th International Conference, pages 598–613. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Kunen. Signed data dependencies in logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 7:231–245, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Nonmonotonic logic. Springer Verlag Heidelberg, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Minker and C. Ruiz. Semantics for disjunctive logic programs with explicit and default negation. Fundamenta Informaticae, 20:145–192, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L.M. Pereira and J.J. Alferes. Well founded semantics for logic programs with explicit negation. In B. Neumann, editor, Proceedings 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'92, pages 102–106, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T.C. Przymusinski. Static semantics for normal and disjunctive logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Schütte. Proof Theory. Springer, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Wagner. A database needs two kinds of negation. In B. Thalheim, J. Demetrovics, and H.D. Gerhardt, editors, MFDBS 91, volume 495 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 357–371. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Informatik und angewandte MathematikUniversität BernDeutschland

Personalised recommendations