Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compiling circumscriptive theories into logic programs

  • Implementing Circumscription
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 1988)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 346))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We study the possibility of reducing some special cases of circumscription to logic programming. The description of a given circumscriptive theory T can be sometimes transformed into a logic program II, so that, by running II, we can determine whether a given ground literal is provable in T. The method is applicable, in particular, to some formalizations of tree-structured inheritance systems with exceptions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Krzysztof R. Apt, Howard A. Blair, and Adrian Walker. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In J. Minker (ed.), Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Genevieve Bossu and Pierre Siegel. Saturation, nonmonotonic reasoning and the closed-world assumption. Artificial Intelligence, 25(1):13–63, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Keith Clark. Negation as failure. In: Logic and Databases, Gallaire, H. and J. Minker (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, 293–322.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Maarten H. van Emden and Robert A. Kowalski. The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language, Journal ACM, 23(4):733–742, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Michael Gelfond. On stratified autoepistemic theories. In Proceedings AAAI-87, 1, 207–211. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. Compiling circumscriptive theories into logic programs: Preliminary report. In Proceedings AAAI-88, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Michael Gelfond and Halina Przymusinska. Negation as failure: Careful closure procedure. Artificial Intelligence 30(3):273–288, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Matthew Ginsberg. A circumscriptive theorem prover: preliminary report. In these Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vladimir Lifschitz. Computing circumscription. In Proceedings IJCAI-85, 1, 121–127. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vladimir Lifschitz. On the satisfiability of circumscription. Artificial Intelligence, 28, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vladimir Lifschitz. On the declarative semantics of logic programs with negation. In J. Minker (ed.), Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, 177–192. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  12. John McCarthy. Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1,2):27–39, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  13. John McCarthy. Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense knowledge, Artificial Intelligence 28(1):89–118, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bernard Meltzer. Theorem proving for computers: some results on resolution and renaming. Comput. Journal, 8:341–343, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Teodor Przymusinski, Query answering in circumscriptive and closed-world theories. In Proceedings AAAI-86, 1, 186–190. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Teodor Przymusinski. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In J. Minker (ed.), Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, 193–216. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Teodor Przymusinski. On the Declarative and Procedural Semantics of Logic Programs. Preprint, University of Texas at El Paso, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rodney Topor. Domain Independent Formulas and Databases. Technical Report 86/11, Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne. To appear in Theoretical Computer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  19. David Touretzky. The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Pitman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Allen Van Gelder. Negation as failure using tight derivations for general logic programs. In J. Minker (ed.), Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, 149–176. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas at El Paso, 79968, El Paso, TX, USA

    Michael Gelfond

  2. Stanford University, 94305, Stanford, CA, USA

    Vladimir Lifschitz

Authors
  1. Michael Gelfond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vladimir Lifschitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

M. Reinfrank J. de Kleer M. L. Ginsberg E. Sandewall

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V. (1988). Compiling circumscriptive theories into logic programs. In: Reinfrank, M., de Kleer, J., Ginsberg, M.L., Sandewall, E. (eds) Non-Monotonic Reasoning. NMR 1988. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 346. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-50701-9_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-50701-9_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-50701-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46073-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation