Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Revisiting Explicit Negation in Answer Set Programming

  • FELICIDAD AGUADO (a1), PEDRO CABALAR (a1), JORGE FANDINNO (a2) (a3), DAVID PEARCE (a4), GILBERTO PÉREZ (a5) and CONCEPCIÓN VIDAL (a5)...

Abstract

A common feature in Answer Set Programming is the use of a second negation, stronger than default negation and sometimes called explicit, strong or classical negation. This explicit negation is normally used in front of atoms, rather than allowing its use as a regular operator. In this paper we consider the arbitrary combination of explicit negation with nested expressions, as those defined by Lifschitz, Tang and Turner. We extend the concept of reduct for this new syntax and then prove that it can be captured by an extension of Equilibrium Logic with this second negation. We study some properties of this variant and compare to the already known combination of Equilibrium Logic with Nelson’s strong negation.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Revisiting Explicit Negation in Answer Set Programming
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Revisiting Explicit Negation in Answer Set Programming
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Revisiting Explicit Negation in Answer Set Programming
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Footnotes

Hide All
*

This work was partially supported by MINECO, Spain, grant TIC2017-84453-P, Xunta de Galicia, Spain (GPC ED431B 2019/03 and 2016-2019 ED431G/01, CITIC). The third author is funded by the Centre International de Mathématiques et d’Informatique de Toulouse (CIMI) through contract ANR-11-LABEX-0040-CIMI within the programme ANR-11-IDEX-0002-02 and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Aguado, F., Cabalar, P., Diéguez, M., Pérez, G., and Vidal, C. 2013. Temporal equilibrium logic: a survey. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 23, 1-2, 224.
Cabalar, P. 2011. Functional answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 11, 2-3, 203233.
Cabalar, P., Fandinno, J., and Fariñas del Cerro, L. 2019. Founded world views with autoepistemic equilibrium logic. In Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’19) (June 3-7).
Cabalar, P., Fariñas del Cerro, L., Pearce, D., and Valverde, A. 2014. A free logic for stable models with partial intensional functions. In Proc. of the 14th European Conf. on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA 2014, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, September 24-26, Fermé, E. and Leite, J., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8761. Springer, 340354.
Cabalar, P., Odintsov, S., and Pearce, D. 2006. Strong negation in well-founded and partial stable semantics for logic programs. In Proc. of the 10th Ibero-American Artificial Intelligence Conf. (IBERAMIA’06), Ribeiro Preto, Brazil. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4140. 592601.
Fariñas del Cerro, L. and Herzig, A. 1996. Combining classical and intuitionistic logic, or: Intuitionistic implication as a conditional. In Proc. of the 1st Intl. Workshop on Frontiers of Combining Systems, Munich, Germany, March 26-29, Baader, F. and Schulz, K. U., Eds. Applied Logic Series, vol. 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 93102.
Fariñas del Cerro, L., Herzig, A., and Su, E. I. 2015. Epistemic equilibrium logic. In Proc. of the Intl. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’15). AAAI Press, 29642970.
Ferraris, P. 2005. Answer sets for propositional theories. In Proc. of the 8th Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR’05), Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., and Terracina, G., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3662. Springer, 119131.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. of the 5th Intl. Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP’88). 10701080.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Comput. 9, 3/4, 365386.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1993. Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 17, 2/3&4, 301321.
Heyting, A. 1930. Die formalen Regeln der intuitionistischen Logik. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse, 4256.
Lifschitz, V., Pearce, D., and Valverde, A. 2001. Strongly equivalent logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 4, 526541.
Lifschitz, V., Tang, L. R., and Turner, H. 1999. Nested expressions in logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3–4, 369389.
Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. Springer-Verlag, 169181.
Nelson, D. 1949. Constructible falsity. Journal of Symbolic Logic 14, 1626.
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. AMAI 25, 241273.
Odintsov, S. P. and Pearce, D. 2005. Routley semantics for answer sets. In Proc. of the 8th Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LPNMR 2005, Diamante, Italy, Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., and Terracina, G., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3662. Springer, 343355.
Ortiz, M. and Osorio, M. 2007. Strong negation and equivalence in the safe belief semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation 17, 499515.
Pearce, D. 1997. A new logical characterisation of stable models and answer sets. In NMELP. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1216. Springer, 5770.
Pereira, L. M. and Alferes, J. J. 1992. Well founded semantics for logic programs with explicit negation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’92). John Wiley & Sons, Montreal, Canada, 102106.
Vakarelov, D. 1977. Notes on N-lattices and constructive logic with strong negation. Studia logica 36, 1-2, 109125.
Vorob’ev, N. 1952a. A constructive propositional calculus with strong negation (in Russian). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSR 85, 465468.
Vorob’ev, N. 1952b. The problem of deducibility in constructive propositional calculus with strong negation (in russian). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSR 85, 689692.

Keywords

Revisiting Explicit Negation in Answer Set Programming

  • FELICIDAD AGUADO (a1), PEDRO CABALAR (a1), JORGE FANDINNO (a2) (a3), DAVID PEARCE (a4), GILBERTO PÉREZ (a5) and CONCEPCIÓN VIDAL (a5)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.