Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

In a previous paper (Blair et al. 2001), the authors showed that the mechanism underlying Logic Programming can be extended to handle the situation where the atoms are interpreted as subsets of a given space X. The view of a logic program as a one-step consequence operator along with the concepts of supported and stable model can be transferred to such situations. In this paper, we show that we can further extend this paradigm by creating a new one-step consequence operator by composing the old one-step consequence operator with a monotonic idempotent operator (miop) in the space of all subsets of X, 2X. We call this extension set based logic programming. We show that such a set based formalism for logic programming naturally supports a variety of options. For example, if the underlying space has a topology, one can insist that the new one-step consequence operator always produces a closed set or always produces an open set. The flexibility inherent in the semantics of set based logic programs is due to both the range of natural choices available for specifying the semantics of negation, as well as the role of monotonic idempotent operators (miops) as parameters in the semantics. This leads to a natural type of polymorphism for logic programming, i.e. the same logic program can produce a variety of outcomes depending on the miop associated with the semantics. We develop a general framework for set based programming involving miops. Among the applications, we obtain integer-based representations of real continuous functions as stable models of a set based logic program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AAAI: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring 2001 Symposium on Answer Set Programming, Stanford, March 2001

  2. Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Burris, S., Sankappanavar, H.P.: A Course in Universal Algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, no. 78. Springer, New York (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Batarekh, A., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Topological model set deformations in logic programming. Fundam. Math. XII(3), 357–400 (1989)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Blair, H.A., Marek, V.W., Remmel, J.B.: Spatial logic programming. In: Proceedings SCI 2001, Orlando, July 2001

  6. Denecker, M.: Extending classical logic with inductive definitions. In: First International Conference on Computational Logic (CL2000). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1861, pp. 703–717. Springer, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Feferman, S.: Formal theories for transfinite iterations of generalized inductive definitions and some subsystems of analysis. In: Kino, A., Myhill, J., Vesley, R. (eds.) Intuitionism and Proof Theory, pp. 303–326. North Holland, Amsterdam (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gelfond, M., Leone, N.: Logic programming and knowledge representation—a-prolog perspective. Artif. Intell. 138, 3–38 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 1070–1080. MIT, Cambridge (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jaffar, J., Maher, M.: Constraint logic programming: a survey. J. Log. Program. 19–20, 503–581 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuratowski, K.: Topology. Academic, London (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lifschitz, V.: Minimal belief and negation as failure. Artif. Intell. 70, 53–72 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Kifer, M., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Theory of generalized annotated logic programming and its applications. J. Log. Program. 12, 335–367 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm. Series Artificial Intelligence, pp. 375–398. Springer, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25, 3, 4, 241–273 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Troelstra, A.S., van Dalen, D.L.: Constructivism in Mathematics, volumes I and II. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Van Gelder, A., Ross, K., Schlipf, J.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 38, 3, 620–650 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Weisstein, E.W., et.al.: “Lattice.” From MathWorld–A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Lattice.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. A. Blair.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blair, H.A., Marek, V.W. & Remmel, J.B. Set based logic programming. Ann Math Artif Intell 52, 81–105 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-008-9098-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-008-9098-1

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2000)

Navigation