Advertisement

Approximations, Stable Operators, Well-Founded Fixpoints and Applications in Nonmonotonic Reasoning

  • Marc Denecker
  • Victor Marek
  • Mirosław Truszczyński
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 597)

Abstract

In this paper we develop an algebraic framework for studying semantics of nonmonotonic logics. Our approach is formulated in the language of lattices, bilattices, operators and fixpoints. The goal is to describe fixpoints of an operator O defined on a lattice. The key intuition is that of an approximation, a pair (x, y) of lattice elements which can be viewed as an approximation to each lattice element z such that xzy. The key notion is that of an approximating operator, a monotone operator on the bilattice of approximations whose fixpoints approximate the fixpoints of the operator O. The main contribution of the paper is an algebraic construction which assigns a certain operator, called the stable operator, to every approximating operator on a bilattice of approximations. This construction leads to an abstract version of the well–founded semantics. In the paper we show that our theory offers a unified framework for semantic studies of logic programming, default logic and autoepistemic logic.

Keywords

Nonmonotonic logics operators on lattices fixpoints approximating operators well-founded fixpoint stable fixpoints 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baral, C. and Subrahmanian, V. (1991). Dualities between alternative semantics for logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning (extended abstract). In A. Nerode, W. Marek, and V.S. Subrahmanian, editors, Logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning (Washington, DC, 1991), pages 69–86, Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bochman, A. (1996). Biconsequence Relations for Nonmonotonic Reasoning. In L. Carlucci Aiello, J. Doyle, and S. Shapiro, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference (KR96), pages 482–492, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Bochman, A. (1998a). A Logical Foundation for Logic Programming I: Biconsequence Relations. Journal of Logic Programming 35:151–170.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bochman, A. (1998b). A Logical Foundation for Logic Programming II: Semantics of General Logic Programs. Journal of Logic Programming 35:171–194.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bidoit, N. and Froidevaux, C. (1991). Negation by default and unstratifiable logic programs. Theoretical Computer Science, 78(1, (Part B)):85–112.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brass, S. and Dix, J. (1999), Semantics of (Disjunctive) Logic Programs Based on Partial Evaluation. Journal of Logic Programming 38:167–213.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Denecker, M. (1998). The well-founded semantics is the principle of inductive definition. In J. Dix, L.F. Farinas del Cerro, and U. Furbach, editors, Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1–16. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Denecker, M., Marek, V., and Truszczyński, M. (1998). Fixpoint 3-valued semantics for autoepistemic logic. In B.G. Buchanan and R. Uthurusamy, editors, Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI–98), pages 840–845. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Denecker, M., Marek, V., and Truszczyński, M. (2000). Unified semantic treatment of default and autoepistemic logics. In A.G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference (KR2000), pages 840–845, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Fitting, M. C. (1999). Fixpoint semantics for logic programming — a survey. Theoretical Computer Science. To appear. Available at: http://comet.lehman.cuny.edu/fitting/bookspapers/logprog.html
  11. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable semantics for logic programs. In R. Kowalski, and K. Bowen, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 1070–1080, Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ginsberg, M. (1988). Multivalued logics: a uniform approach to reasoning in artificial intelligence. Computational Intelligence, 4:265–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guerreiro, R. and Casanova, M. (1990). An alternative semantics for default logic. Preprints for The Third International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, South Lake Tahoe, pages 141–157.Google Scholar
  14. Konolige, K. (1988). On the relation between default and autoepistemic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 35(3):343–382.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. (1989a). Relating autoepistemic and default logics. In R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the First International Conference (KR89), pages 276–288, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. (1989b). Stable semantics for logic programs and default theories. In E.Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Proceedings of the North American Conference on Logic Programming, pages 243–256. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, R. (1984). Possible-world semantics for autoepistemic logic. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pages 344–354. Reprinted in: M. Ginsberg, editor, Readings on nonmonotonic reasoning, pp. 137–142, Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, R. (1985). Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 25(l):75–94.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Przymusinski, T. (1990). The well-founded semantics coincides with the three-valued stable semantics. Fundamenta Informaticae, 13(4):445–464.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1–2):81–132.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tarski, A. (1955). Lattice-theoretic fixpoint theorem and its applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 5:285–309.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Emden, M. and Kowalski, R. (1976). The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the ACM, 23(4):733–742.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Denecker
    • 1
  • Victor Marek
    • 2
  • Mirosław Truszczyński
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceK. U. LeuvenHeverleeBelgium
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations