Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An epistemic model of logic programming

  • Regular Papers
  • Published:
New Generation Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

If we view an ordinary logic program as a set of beliefs of animplicit agent about a world, then acompletely epistemic logical view of logic programming would yield a further extension that allows us to reasonexplicitly about beliefs and non-beliefs of any agents. In particular, such a view will accommodate nested beliefs, introspective reasoning of self-beliefs and meta-reasoning of others’ beliefs. In this paper, we present the logical foundation of such a view by developing acomputational logic ofquantified epistemic notions. The semantics of the logic is an extension of Kripke’spossible-worlds semantics with variable domains to capture theintensional imputation problem in epistemic notions. A syntactical characterization of this semantics is developed to yield a clausal form of the logic. An efficient resolution mechanisation of this form is described. It is achieved by augmenting Konolige’sB-resolution with a semi-set-of-support strategy with linear resolution. Further refinements on a Horn clausal form of the logic with negation as failure are also discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  1. Abadi, M. and Manna, Z., “Modal theorem proving,”8th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, LNCS, No. 230, pp. 173–189, 1986.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Abadi, M. and Manna, Z., “Temporal Logic Programming,”IEEE Inter. Symp. on Logic Programming, San. Francisco, pp. 4–16, 1987.

  3. Barnden, J., “Interpreting propositional attitude reports: towards greater freedom and control,”Proc. 7th European Conf. on AI, July, 1986.

  4. Barnden, J., “Belief, metaphorically speaking,”KR 89, 1989.

  5. Bowen, K. and Kowalski, R., “Amalgamating language and meta-language in logic programming,”Logic Programming (K. L. Clark and S.-Å. Tärnlund eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 153–172, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cavalli, A. R. and Farinas Del Cerro, L., “A decision method for linear temporal logic,”IJCAI 83, 1983.

  7. Clark, K. L., “Negation as failure,”Logic and Databases (H. Gallaire and J. Minker eds.), New York, Plenum Press, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clocksin, W. F. and Mellish, C. S.,Programming in Prolog, Springer Verlag, 1981.

  9. Creary, L. G., “Propositional attitude: Fregean representation and simulative reasoning,”Proc. of 6th IJCAI, Tokyo, Japan, August, 1979.

  10. Cresswell, M. J., “Intensional logics and logical truth,”J. of Phil. Logic, 1, pp. 2–15, 1972.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Fariñas del Cerro, L., “Temporal reasoning and termination of programs,”IJCAI, Karlsruhe, West Germany, pp. 926–929. 1983.

  12. Fariñas del Cerro, L., “MOLOG: A system that extends Prolog with modal logic,”New Generation Computing, Vol. 4, pp. 35–50, 1986.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Fitting, M., “Proof methods for modal and intuitionistic logics,”Vol. 169 of Synthese Library, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1983.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Gabbay, D., Pnueli, A. et al., “The temporal analysis of fairness,”7th ACM Sym. on Principles of Programming Language, pp. 163–173, 1980.

  15. Geisler and Konolige, “A resolution method for quantified modal logic,” inProc. Theory of Knowledge (Y. Halpern ed.), 1986.

  16. Halpern, Y. J. and Moses, Y., “A guide to the modal logics of knowledge and belief: preliminary draft,”IJCAI 85, Vol. 1, 1985.

  17. Hughes, G. and Cresswell, M.,An Introduction to Modal Logic, The Chaucer Press, 1984.

  18. Jackson, P. and Reichqelt, H., “A general proof method for first order modal logic,”IJCAI-10, pp. 942–944, 1987.

  19. Jiang, Y. J., “A formalism for representing qualified knowledge,”Ph. D. thesis, Manchester University, England, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jiang, Y. J., “Intension, quantified beliefs and epistemic resolution,”IMSIM 4, 1988.

  21. Jiang, Y. J., “Autoepistemic predicate logic,” to appear inNew Generation Computing.

  22. Konolige, K., “A theory of introspection,”IJCAI, 1985.

  23. Konolige, K., “Resolution and quantified epistemic logics,”8th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction, LNCS, No. 230, pp. 199–208, 1986.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Konolige, K., “On the relation between autoepistemic logic and default logic,”IJCAI 87, 1987.

  25. Kowalski, R. and Kuehner, D., “Linear resolution with selection function,”AI, 2, pp. 227–260, 1971.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Kowalski, R., “Logic programming,”IFIP, 83, pp. 133–145, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kripke, S. A., “A completeness theorem in modal logic”,J. of Symbolic Logic, 24, pp. 1–14, 1959.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Kripke, S. A., “Semantic considerations on modal logic,”Acta Philosophica Hennica, 16, pp. 83–84, 1963.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuo, V., “A formal natural deduction system about knowledge: modal logic,” W. JS, Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, 1984.

  30. McCarthy, J., “First order theories of individual concepts and propositions,”Machine Intel., 9 (J. Hayes, D. Michie and L. Mikulich, eds.), Ellis Horwood, 1979.

  31. Moore, R. C., “A formal theory of knowledge and action,”Formal Theories of the Commonsense World (J. R. Hobbes and R. C. Moore eds.), Ablex Pub. Corp., 1985.

  32. Moore, R. C., “Semantic considerations on non-monotonic logic,”AI, 25, 1985.

  33. De La Quintina, J., “Computing quantifiers in modal logic,”ECAI 88, 1988.

  34. Robinson, J. A., “A machine oriented logic based on the resolution principle,”JACM, Vol. 12, pp. 23–41, 1965.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Reiter, R., “On closed world database,”Logic and Databases (H. Gallaire and J. Minker eds.), Plenum Press, pp. 149–178, 1978.

  36. Reiter, R., “A logic for default reasoning,”AI, 13, pp. 81–132. 1980.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Stickle, M., “Automated deduction by theory resolution,”9th IJCAI, 1985.

  38. Sakakibara, Y., “Programming in modal logic: An extension of Prolog based on modal logic,”Logic Programming 87, Japan, pp. 81–91, 1987.

  39. Wallen, L., “Matrix proof methods for modal logics,”IJCAI 87, 1987.

  40. Wilks, Y. and Ballim, A., “Multiple agents and the heuristic ascription of belief,”IJCAI 87, 1987.

  41. Wos, L. and Robinson, A., “Efficiency and completeness of the set-of-support strategy in theorem proving,”JACM 12, pp. 536–541, 1965.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Gabbay, D.,Modal and temporal logic programming (A. Galton ed.), pp. 197–237, Academic Press, 1988.

  43. Murray, N. V., “Completely non-clausal theorem proving,”Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 67–85, 1982.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Weyhrauch, R., “Prolegomena to a theory of mechanized formal reasoning,”Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 13, Nos. 1–2, 1980.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Y. J. Jiang

    Present address: Department of Computing, Imperial College, SW7 2BZ, London, England

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University, CB2 3QG, Cambridge, England

    Y. J. Jiang

Authors
  1. Y. J. Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Jiang, Y.J. An epistemic model of logic programming. New Gener Comput 8, 33–59 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037512

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037512

Keywords

Search

Navigation