Arithmetic classification of perfect models of stratified programs
Fundamenta Informaticae - Special issue on LOGIC PROGRAMMING
Minimal belief and negation as failure
Artificial Intelligence
Nonmonotonic Logic: Context-Dependent Reasoning
Nonmonotonic Logic: Context-Dependent Reasoning
Logic programming and knowledge representation-the A-prolog perspective
Artificial Intelligence
Extending and implementing the stable model semantics
Artificial Intelligence
Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving
Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving
Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
Automatic Presentations of Structures
LCC '94 Selected Papers from the International Workshop on Logical and Computational Complexity
Extending Classical Logic with Inductive Definitions
CL '00 Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Logic
ASSAT: computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers
Eighteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence
LICS '00 Proceedings of the 15th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
Answer Set Programming Based on Propositional Satisfiability
Journal of Automated Reasoning
Clasp: a conflict-driven answer set solver
LPNMR'07 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning
Effectively reasoning about infinite sets in answer set programming
Logic programming, knowledge representation, and nonmonotonic reasoning
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
In answer set programming (ASP), one does not allow the use of function symbols. Disallowing function symbols avoids the problem of having logic programs which have stable models of excessively high complexity. For example, Marek, Nerode, and Remmel showed that there exist finite predicate logic programs which have stable models but which have no hyperarithmetic stable model. Of course, by eliminating function symbols, one loses a lot of expressive power in the language. In particular, it is difficult to directly reason about infinite sets in ASP. Blair, Marek, and Remmel [BMR08] developed an extension of logic programming called set based logic programming . In the theory of set based logic programming, the atoms represent subsets of a fixed universe X and one is allowed to compose the one-step consequence operator with a monotonic idempotent operator O so as to ensure that the analogue of stable models are always closed under O . We show that if the sets represented by the atoms in a finite set based program P are languages accepted by finite automaton, and the operators involved in the construction have a certain natural property, then all the stable models of P are languages accepted by finite automaton and one can effectively check whether a language accepted by a finite automaton is a stable model of the set based logic program. Thus in this setting, one can effectively reason about certain classes of infinite sets.