Advertisement

Proving existential termination of normal logic programs

  • Massimo Marchiori
Conference Session 6: Logic Programming and Term Rewriting
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1101)

Abstract

The most important open problem in the study of termination for logic programs is that of existential termination. In this paper we present a powerful transformational methodology that provides necessary (and, under some conditions, sufficient) criteria for existential termination. The followed approach is to develop a suitable transformation from logic programs to Term Rewriting Systems (TRSs), such that proving termination of the obtained TRS implies existential termination of the original logic program. Thus, all the extensive amount of work on termination for TRSs can be automatically used in the logic programming setting. Moreover, the approach is also able to cope with the dual notion of universal termination: in fact, a whole spectrum of termination properties, said k-termination, is investigated, of which universal and existential termination are the extremes. Also, a satisfactory treatment to the problem of termination for logic programming with negation is achieved. This way we provide a unique, uniform approach covering all these different notions of termination.

Keywords

Logic Program Existential Termination Logic Programming Predicate Symbol Transformational Approach 
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]
    G. Aguzzi and U. Modigliani. Proving termination of logic programs by transforming them into equivalent term rewriting systems. FST&TCS, LNCS 761, pp. 114–124. 1993.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Aiken and T.K. Lakshman. Directional type checking of logic programs. In Proc. of SAS, LNCS 864, pages 43–60, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    K.R. Apt and S. Etalle. On the unification free Prolog programs. Proc MFCS LNCS 711, pp. 1–19. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    K.R. Apt and D. Pedreschi. Proving termination of general Prolog programs. In Proc TACS, LNCS 526, pages 265–289. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    T. Arts and H. Zantema. Termination of logic programs using semantic unification. In Proc. 5th LoPSTr, LNCS. 1996. To appear.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Baudinet. Proving termination properties of Prolog programs: a semantic approach. Journal of Logic Programming, 14:1–29, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    F. Bronsard, T.K. Lakshman, and U.S Reddy. A framework of directionality for proving termination of logic programs. Proc. JICSLP, pp. 321–335. The MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Chtourou and M. Rusinowitch. Méthode transformationnelle pour la preuve de terminaison des programmes logiques. Manuscript, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    K.L. Clark and S.-Å. Tärnlund. A first order theory of data and programs. In B. Gilchrist, editor, Proc. IFIP Congress on Information Processing, pp. 939–944, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    H. Coelho and J.C. Cotta. Prolog by Example. Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    L. Colussi, E. Marchiori, and M. Marchiori. On termination of constraint logic programs. In Proc. CP'95, LNCS 976, pp. 431–448. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    T. Conway, F. Henderson, and Z. Somogyi. Code generation for Mercury. In Proc. International Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 242–256. The MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. de Schreye and S. Decorte. Termination of logic programs: The never-ending story. Journal of Logic Programming, 19,20:199–260, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    S.K. Debray. Static inference of modes and data dependencies in logic programs. ACM TOPLAS, 11(3):418–450, July 1989.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    N. Dershowitz. Termination of rewriting. J. of Symbolic Computation, 3:69–116, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    N. Dershowitz and C. Hoot. Topics in termination. In Proceedings of the Fifth RTA, LNCS 690, pp. 198–212. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    N. Dershowitz and J. Jouannaud. Rewrite systems. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, chapter 6, pp. 243–320. Elsevier-MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    N. Franchez, O. Grumberg, S. Katz, and A. Pnueli. Proving termination of Prolog programs. In R. Parikh, editor, Logics of programs, pp. 89–105. Springer, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    H. Ganzinger and U. Waldmann. Termination proofs of well-moded logic programs via conditional rewrite systems. CTRS'92, LNCS 656, pp. 216–222. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    G. Levi and F. Scozzari. Contributions to a theory of existential termination for definite logic programs. GULP-PRODE'95, pp. 631–642. 1995.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    E. Marchiori. Practical methods for proving termination of general logic programs. The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1996. To appear.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. Marchiori. Logic programs as term rewriting systems. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming, LNCS 850, pp. 223–241. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    M. Marchiori. Localizations of unification freedom through matching directions. Proc. International Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 392–406. The MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M. Marchiori. The functional side of logic programming. In Proc. ACM FPCA, pages 55–65. ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    K. Rao, D. Kapur, and R.K. Shyamasundar. A transformational methodology for proving termination of logic programs. 5th CSL, LNCS 626, pp. 213–226, Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    K Rao, P.K. Pandya, and R.K. Shyamasunder. Verification tools in the development of provably correct compilers. FME'93, LNCS 670, pp. 442–461. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Y. Rouzaud and L. Nguyen-Phoung. Integrating modes and subtypes into a Prolog type checker. In Proc. JICSLP, pages 85–97. The MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    L. Sterling and E. Shapiro. The Art of Prolog. The MIT Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    B. Wang and R.K. Shyamasundar. A methodology for proving termination of logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 21(1):1–30, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimo Marchiori
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Pure and Applied MathematicsUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations