skip to main content
article

Why are there so many loop formulas?

Published:01 April 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A theorem by Lin and Zhao shows how to turn any nondisjunctive logic program, understood in accordance with the answer set semantics, into an equivalent set of propositional formulas. The set of formulas generated by this process can be significantly larger than the original program. In this article we show (assuming PNC1 / poly, a conjecture from the theory of computational complexity that is widely believed to be true) that this is inevitable: any equivalent translation from logic programs to propositional formulas involves a significant increase in size.

References

  1. Clark, K. 1978. Negation as failure. In Logic and Data Bases. H. Gallaire and J. Minker, eds. Plenum Press, New York, 293--322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cook, S. A. 1974. An observation on time-storage trade-off. J. Comput. System Sciences 9, 3, 308--316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. 1993. Complexity results for disjunctive logic programming and application to nonmonotonic logics. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS), D. Miller, ed. 266--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Conference and Symposium. R. Kowalski and K. Bowen, eds. 1070--1080.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gogic, G., Kautz, H., Papadimitriou, C., and Selman, B. 1995. The comparative linguistics of knowledge representation. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). 862--869. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Greenlaw, R., Hoover, H. J., and Ruzzo, W. L. 1995. Limits to Parallel Computation: P-Completeness Theory. Oxford University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Inoue, K. and Sakama, C. 1998. Negation as failure in the head. J. Logic Programming 35, 39--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Jones, N. D. 1975. Space-Bounded reducibility among combinatorial problems. J. Comput. System Sciences 11, 68--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lee, J. and Lifschitz, V. 2003. Loop formulas for disjunctive logic programs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP). 451--465.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Lifschitz, V., Tang, L. R., and Turner, H. 1999. Nested expressions in logic programs. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 25, 369--389. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Lin, F. and Zhao, J. 2003. On tight logic programs and yet another translation from normal logic programs and propositional logic. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). 853--864. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Lin, F. and Zhao, Y. 2002. ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by SAT solvers. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 112--117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M. 1991. Autoepistemic logic. J. ACM 38, 588--619. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Niemelä, I., Simons, P., and Soininen, T. 2002. Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artificial Intelligence 138, 181--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Reiter, R. 1980. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 81--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Spira, P. M. 1971. On time-hardware complexity tradeoffs for Boolean functions. In Proceedings of the 4th Hawaii Symposium on System Sciences. Western Periodicals Company, North Hollywood, 525--527.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Why are there so many loop formulas?

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
          ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 7, Issue 2
          April 2006
          221 pages
          ISSN:1529-3785
          EISSN:1557-945X
          DOI:10.1145/1131313
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2006 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 April 2006
          Published in tocl Volume 7, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader