Theory of stable models is the mathematical basis of answer set programming. Several results in that theory refer to the concept of the positive dependency graph of a logic program. We describe a modification of that concept and show that the new understanding of positive dependency makes it possible to strengthen some of these results.

In answer set programming, two groups of rules are considered strongly equivalent if they have the same meaning in any context. In some cases, strong equivalence of programs in the input language of the grounder gringo can be established by deriving rules of each program from rules of the other. The possibility of such proofs has been demonstrated for a subset of that language that includes comparisons, arithmetic operations, and simple choice rules, but not aggregates. This method is extended here to a class of programs in which some uses of the #count aggregate are allowed.

In the theory of answer set programming, two groups of rules are called strongly equivalent if, informally speaking, they have the same meaning in any context. The relationship between strong equivalence and the propositional logic of here-and-there allows us to establish strong equivalence by deriving rules of each group from rules of the other. In the process, rules are rewritten as propositional formulas. We extend this method of proving strong equivalence to an answer set programming language that includes operations on integers. The formula representing a rule in this language is a first-order formula that may contain comparison symbols among its predicate constants, and symbols for arithmetic operations among its function constants. The paper is under consideration for acceptance in TPLP.

Frederick II's writings have conventionally been viewed either as political tools or as means of public self-fashioning – part of his campaign to raise the status of Prussia from middling principality to great power. This article, by contrast, argues that Frederick's works must also be taken seriously on their own terms, and interpreted against the background of Enlightenment philosophy. Frederick's notions of kingship and state service were not governed mostly by a principle of pure morality or ‘humanitarianism’, as argued influentially by Friedrich Meinecke. On the contrary, the king's views were part and parcel of an eighteenth-century vision of modern kingship in commercial society, based on the benign pursuit of self-love and luxury. A close analysis of Frederick's writings demonstrates that authorial labour was integral to his political agency, publicly placing constraints on what could be perceived as legitimate conduct, rather than mere intellectual window-dressing or an Enlightened pastime in irresolvable tension with his politics.

This paper continues the line of research aimed at investigating the relationship between logic programs and first-order theories. We extend the definition of program completion to programs with input and output in a subset of the input language of the ASP grounder gringo, study the relationship between stable models and completion in this context, and describe preliminary experiments with the use of two software tools, anthem and vampire, for verifying the correctness of programs with input and output. Proofs of theorems are based on a lemma that relates the semantics of programs studied in this paper to stable models of first-order formulas.

The input language of the answer set solver clingo is based on the definition of a stable model proposed by Paolo Ferraris. The semantics of the ASP-Core language, developed by the ASP Standardization Working Group, uses the approach to stable models due to Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, and Gerald Pfeifer. The two languages are based on different versions of the stable model semantics, and the ASP-Core document requires, “for the sake of an uncontroversial semantics,” that programs avoid the use of recursion through aggregates. In this paper we prove that the absence of recursion through aggregates does indeed guarantee the equivalence between the two versions of the stable model semantics, and show how that requirement can be relaxed without violating the equivalence property.

This paper describes an approach to the methodology of answer set programming that can facilitate the design of encodings that are easy to understand and provably correct. Under this approach, after appending a rule or a small group of rules to the emerging program, we include a comment that states what has been “achieved” so far. This strategy allows us to set out our understanding of the design of the program by describing the roles of small parts of the program in a mathematically precise way.

We argue that turning a logic program into a set of completed definitions can be sometimes thought of as the “reverse engineering” process of generating a set of conditions that could serve as a specification for it. Accordingly, it may be useful to define completion for a large class of Answer Set Programming (ASP) programs and to automate the process of generating and simplifying completion formulas. Examining the output produced by this kind of software may help programmers to see more clearly what their program does, and to what degree its behavior conforms with their expectations. As a step toward this goal, we propose here a definition of program completion for a large class of programs in the input language of the ASP grounder gringo, and study its properties.

The definition of stable models for propositional formulas with infinite conjunctions and disjunctions can be used to describe the semantics of answer set programming languages. In this note, we enhance that definition by introducing a distinction between intensional and extensional atoms. The symmetric splitting theorem for first-order formulas is then extended to infinitary formulas and used to reason about infinitary definitions.

The infinitary propositional logic of here-and-there is important for the theory of answer set programming in view of its relation to strongly equivalent transformations of logic programs. We know a formal system axiomatizing this logic exists, but a proof in that system may include infinitely many formulas. In this note we describe a relationship between the validity of infinitary formulas in the logic of here-and-there and the provability of formulas in some finite deductive systems. This relationship allows us to use finite proofs to justify the validity of infinitary formulas.