Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Relevant logic programming

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we present a fragment of (positive) relevant logic which can be computed by a straightforward extension to SLD resolution while allowing full nesting of implications. These two requirements lead quite naturally to a fragment in which the major feature is an ambiguous ‘user-level’ conjunction which is interpreted intensionally in ‘query’ positions and extensionally in ‘assertion’ positions. These restrictions allow a simple and efficient extension to SLD resolution (and more particularly, the PROLOG evaluation scheme) with quite minor loss in expressive power.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Anderson A. R. and Belnap N. D.Jr.,Entailment: the Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Batens Diderik, ‘Static and dynamic paraconsistent logics’,CC-AI,3, 1–2 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Belnap, N. D., Jr., ‘How a computer should think’, InContemporary Aspects of Philosophy, Oxford (1977).

  4. Belnap, N. D., Jr., ‘A useful four valued logic’, In G. Epstein and J. M. Dunn (eds.),Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, Reidel (1977).

  5. Bollen, A. W., ‘A relevant reasoner’, Research Paper No 18, Logic Group, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University (1985).

  6. Bollen, A. W., ‘A Relevant Extension to PROLOG’, Technical Report TR-ARP-15/87, Automated Reasoning Project, Australian National University (1987).

  7. Bollen, A. W., ‘Conditional Logic Programming’, Ph.D. Thesis, The Australian National University (1988).

  8. Blair, H. A. and Subrahmanian, V. S., ‘Paraconsistent logic programming’, InSpringer Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 287, Springer-Verlag (1987).

  9. Dunn, J. M., ‘The algebra of intensional logics’, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh (1966).

  10. Dunn, J. M., ‘Relevance logic and entailment’, In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.),Handbook of Philosophical Logic Vol. III, Reidel (1986).

  11. Girard J.-Y., ‘Linear logic’,Theoretical Computer Science,50, 1–101 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gabbay D. M. and Reyle U., ‘N-PROLOG: an extension to PROLOG with hypothetical implications, I’,Journal of Logic Programming,4, 319–355 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hogger, Christopher Joyn,Introduction to Logic Programming, Academic Press (1984).

  14. Lloyd, J. W.,Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag (1984).

  15. Lloyd J. W. and Topor R. W., ‘Making PROLOG more expressive’,Journal of Logic Programming,3, 225–240 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lloyd J. W. and Topor R. W., ‘A basis for deductive database systems’,Journal of Logic Programming,2, 93–109 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer, R. K., ‘Intuitionism, entailment, negation’, In H. Leblanc (ed.)Truth, Syntax and Modality, North Holland (1972).

  18. Meyer, R. K., ‘A Boolean valued semantics for R’, Research Paper No. 4, Logic Group, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University (1979).

  19. Mitchell, John C. and O'Donnell, Michael J. ‘Realizability semantics for error-tolerant logics’, InProc. 1986 Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, Morgan Kauffman (1986).

  20. Meyer, R. K. and Routley, Richard, ‘Algebraic analysis of entailment, I’,Logique et Analyse,15 (1972).

  21. Martins, J. P. and Shapiro, Stuart C., ‘Theoretical foundations for belief revision’, InProc. 1986 Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, Morgan Kauffman (1986).

  22. Robinson, J. A.,Logic: Form and Function, Edinburgh University Press (1979).

  23. Sylvan, R., Meyer, R. K., Plumwood, V. and Brady, R. T.,Relevant Logics and their Rivals I, Ridgeview (1982).

  24. Shapiro, Stuart C. and Wand, Mitchell, ‘The Relevance of Relevance’, Technical Report 46, Computer Science Department, Indiana University (1976).

  25. Tennant, Neil, ‘Perfect validity, entailment and paraconsistency’,Studia Logica,XLIII (1/2) (1984).

  26. Thistlewaite, P. B., McRobbie, M. A. and Meyer, R. K.,Automated Theorem Proving in Non-Classical Logics, Pitman (1988).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, Australian National University, GPO Box 4, ACT 2601, Canberra, Australia

    A. W. Bollen

Authors
  1. A. W. Bollen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bollen, A.W. Relevant logic programming. J Autom Reasoning 7, 563–585 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880329

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880329

Key words