Relation To Nonmonotonic Logic
The meaning of negation in logic programs is closely related to two theories of nonmonotonic reasoning -- autoepistemic logic and default logic. The discovery of these relationships was a key step towards the invention of the stable model semantics.
The syntax of autoepistemic logic uses a modal operator that allows us to distinguish between what is true and what is believed. Michael Gelfond proposed to read in the body of a rule as " is not believed", and to understand a rule with negation as the corresponding formula of autoepistemic logic. The stable model semantics, in its basic form, can be viewed as a reformulation of this idea that avoids explicit references to autoepistemic logic.
In default logic, a default is similar to an inference rule, except that it includes, besides its premises and conclusion, a list of formulas called justifications. A default can be used to derive its conclusion under the assumption that its justifications are consistent with what is currently believed. Nicole Bidoit and Christine Froidevaux proposed to treat negated atoms in the bodies of rules as justifications. For instance, the rule
can be understood as the default that allows us to derive from assuming that is consistent. The stable model semantics uses the same idea, but it does not explicitly refer to default logic.
Read more about this topic: Stable Model Semantics
Famous quotes containing the words relation to, relation and/or logic:
“Science is the language of the temporal world; love is that of the spiritual world. Man, indeed, describes more than he explains; while the angelic spirit sees and understands. Science saddens man; love enraptures the angel; science is still seeking, love has found. Man judges of nature in relation to itself; the angelic spirit judges of it in relation to heaven. In short to the spirits everything speaks.”
—Honoré De Balzac (1799–1850)
“Hesitation increases in relation to risk in equal proportion to age.”
—Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961)
“Our argument ... will result, not upon logic by itself—though without logic we should never have got to this point—but upon the fortunate contingent fact that people who would take this logically possible view, after they had really imagined themselves in the other man’s position, are extremely rare.”
—Richard M. Hare (b. 1919)