Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Logic programming with infinite sets

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 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

Using the ideas from current investigations in Knowledge Representation we study the use of a class of logic programs for reasoning about infinite sets. Our programs reason about the codes for various infinite sets. Depending on the form of atoms allowed in the bodies of clauses we obtain a variety of completeness results for various classes of arithmetic sets of integers.

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. C. Anger, K. Konczak and T. Linke, NoMoRe: A system for nonmonotonic reasoning under answer set semantics, in: Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2173 (Springer, New York, 2001) pp. 406–410.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. Apt and H.A. Blair, Arithmetical classification of perfect models of stratified programs, Fundamenta Informaticae 12 (1990) 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Y. Babovich and V. Lifschitz, Cmodels, http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/tag/cmodels.html (2002).

  4. C. Baral, Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  5. H.A. Blair, V.W. Marek and J. Schlipf, The expressiveness of locally stratified programs, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15(2) (1995) 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. P.A. Bonatti, Reasoning with infinite stable models, in: Proc. of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 2001) pp. 603–610.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P.A. Bonatti, Prototypes for Reasoning with Infinite Stable Models and Function Symbols, in: Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2173 (Springer, New York, 2001) pp. 416–419.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P.A. Bonatti, Reasoning with infinite stable models, Artificial Intelligence 156(1) (2004) 75–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. P. Bruscoli, A. Dovier, E. Pontelli and G. Rossi, Compiling intensional sets in CLP, in: Proc. of 11th Conference on Logic Programming (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994) pp. 647–661.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Cenzer, V.W. Marek and J.B. Remmel, Using logic programs to reason about infinite sets, in: Proc. of the Symposium on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence; available at http:rutcor.rutgers.edu/~amai/aimath04.

  11. D. Cenzer, V.W. Marek and J.B. Remmel, Compactness property for logic programs, forthcoming.

  12. D. Cenzer and J.B. Remmel, Index sets for Π 01 classes, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 93 (1998) 3–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Cenzer and J.B. Remmel, Π 01 classes in mathematics, in: Handbook of Recursive Mathematics, (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999) pp. 623–821.

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. Cenzer, J.B. Remmel and A. Vanderbilt, Locally determined logic programs and recursive stable models, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 40 (2004) 225–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. P. Cholewiński, Stratified default theories, in: Proc. of Computer Science Logic Conference, CSL’94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 933 (Springer, New York, 1995) pp. 456–470.

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Dovier, E.G. Omodeo, E. Pontelli and G. Rossi, A logic programming language with finite sets, in: Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Logic Programming (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991) pp. 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Dovier, E.G. Omodeo, E. Pontelli and G. Rossi, Flogg: A language for programming in logic with finite sets, Journal of Logic Programming 28(1) (1996) 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. A. Dovier, E. Pontelli and G. Rossi, Checked intensional sets in CLP, in: Proc. of International Conference on Logic Programming, Lecture Notes on Computer Science, Vol. 2916 (Springer, New York, 2003) pp. 284–299.

    Google Scholar 

  19. T. Eiter, G. Gottlob and H. Veith, Modular logic programs and general quantifiers, in: Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1265 (Springer, New York, 1997) pp. 290–309.

    Google Scholar 

  20. T. Eiter, N. Leone, C. Mateis, G. Pfeifer and F. Scarcello, The KR system dlv: Progress report,comparisons, and benchmarks, in: Proc. of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-98) (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1998)pp. 406–417.

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, The stable semantics for logic programs, in: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988) pp. 1070–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  22. M. Gelfond and N. Leone, Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation – A-Prolog perspective, Artificial Intelligence Journal 138 (2002) 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov, BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver, in: Proc. of Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe (2002) pp. 142–149.

  24. P.G. Hinman, Recursion-Theoretic Hierarchies (Springer, Berlin, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. Jaffar and M. Maher, Constraint logic programming: A survey, Journal of Logic Programming 19(20) (1994) 503–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. G.M. Kuper, L. Libkin and J. Paradaens, Constraint Databases (Springer, Berlin, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  27. V. Lifschitz and H. Turner, Splitting a logic program, in: Proc. of International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP’94 (1994) pp. 23–37.

  28. F. Lin and Y. Zhao, ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers, in: Proc. of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 2002) pp. 112–117.

    Google Scholar 

  29. W. Marek, A. Nerode and J.B. Remmel, The stable models of predicate logic programs, Journal of Logic Programming 21(3) (1994) 129–154.

    Google Scholar 

  30. V.W. Marek and J.B. Remmel, Set constraints in logic programming, in: Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2923 (Springer, New York, 2004) pp. 167–179.

    Google Scholar 

  31. V.W. Marek and M. Truszczynski, Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm, in: The Logic Programming Paradigm (Springer, Berlin, 1999) pp. 375–398.

    Google Scholar 

  32. M.W. Moskewicz, C.F. Magidan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in: Proc. of Design Automation Conference (2001) pp. 530–535.

  33. I. Niemelä, Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25 (1999) 241–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. I. Niemelä, P. Simons and T. Soininen, Stable model semantics of weight constraint rules, in: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1730 (Springer, New York, 1999) pp. 317–331.

    Google Scholar 

  35. I. Niemelä and P. Simons, Extending the smodels system with cardinality and weight constraints, in: Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2000) pp. 491–521.

    Google Scholar 

  36. P. Simons, I. Niemelä and T. Soininen, Extending and implementing the stable model semantics, Artificial Intelligence 138 (2002) 181–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. R.I. Soare, Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees (Springer, Berlin, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  38. C. Spector, Inductively defined sets of natural numbers, in: Infinitistic Methods (Pergamon Press, New York, 1961) pp. 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  39. T. Syrjänen, Manual of Lparse version 1.0, http://saturn.tcs.hut.fi/Software/smodels

  40. T. Syrjänen, Omega-restricted logic programs, in: Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2173 (Springer, New York, 2001) pp. 267–279.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florida, USA

    Douglas Cenzer

  2. University of California at San Diego, USA

    Jeffrey B Remmel

  3. University of Kentucky, USA

    Victor W. Marek

Authors
  1. Douglas Cenzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey B Remmel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victor W. Marek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Cenzer.

Additional information

AMS subject classification

68T27, 03B70

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cenzer, D., Remmel, J.B. & Marek, V.W. Logic programming with infinite sets. Ann Math Artif Intell 44, 309–339 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-005-7030-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-005-7030-5

Keywords