Advertisement

The Herbrand Manifesto

Thinking Inside the Box
  • Michael Genesereth
  • Eric Kao
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9202)

Abstract

The traditional semantics for relational logic (sometimes called Tarskian semantics) is based on the notion of interpretations of constants in terms of objects external to the logic. Herbrand semantics is an alternative that is based on truth assignments for ground sentences without reference to external objects. Herbrand semantics is simpler and more intuitive than Tarskian semantics; and, consequently, it is easier to teach and learn. Moreover, it is stronger than Tarskian semantics. For example, while it is not possible to finitely axiomatize integer arithmetic with Tarskian semantics, this can be done easily with Herbrand semantics. The downside is a loss of some common logical properties, such as compactness and inferential completeness. However, there is no loss of inferential power—anything that can be deduced according to Tarskian semantics can also be deduced according to Herbrand semantics. Based on these results, we argue that there is value in using Herbrand semantics for relational logic in place of Tarskian semantics. It alleviates many of the current problems with relational logic and ultimately may foster a wider use of relational logic in human reasoning and computer applications.

Keywords

Transitive Closure Relational Logic Truth Assignment Rule System Ground Atom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chandra, A.K., Harel, D.: Horn clause queries and generalizations. The Journal of Logic Programming 2(1), 1–15 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Genesereth, M., Kao, E.: Introduction to Logic, Synthesis Lectures on Computer Science, vol. 4. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2 edn. January 2013. http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/S00432ED1V01Y201207CSL005
  3. 3.
    Genesereth, M., Kao, E.J.Y.: Herbrand semantics. Tech. Rep. LG-2015-01, Logic Group, Computer Science Dept., Stanford University (2015). http://logic.stanford.edu/herbrand/herbrand.html
  4. 4.
    Goubault-Larrecq, J., Mackie, I.: Proof theory and automated deduction. Applied Logic Series, 1st edn. Springer, Netherlands (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keller, U.: Some remarks on the definability of transitive closure in first-order logic and datalog. Tech. rep, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Emden, M.H., Kowalski, R.A.: The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 23(4), 733–742 (1976)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations