On goal-directed provability in classical logic

James Harland
{"title":"On goal-directed provability in classical logic","authors":"James Harland","doi":"10.1016/S0096-0551(97)00013-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>One of the key features of logic programming is the notion of <em>goal-directed</em> provability. In intuitionistic logic, the notion of <em>uniform proof</em> has been used as a proof-theoretic characterization of this property. Whilst the connections between intuitionistic logic and computation are well known, there is no reason per se why a similar notion cannot be given in classical logic. In this paper we show that there are two notions of goal-directed proof in classical logic, both of which are suitably weaker than that for intuitionistic logic. We show the completeness of this class of proofs for certain fragments, which thus form logic programming languages. As there are more possible variations on the notion of goal-directed provability in classical logic, there is a greater diversity of classical logic programming languages than intuitionistic ones. In particular, we show how logic programs may contain disjunctions in this setting. This provides a proof-theoretic basis for disjunctive logic programs, as well as characterising the “disjunctive” nature of answer substitutions for such programs in terms of the provability properties of the classical connectives Λ and Λ.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100315,"journal":{"name":"Computer Languages","volume":"23 2","pages":"Pages 161-178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0096-0551(97)00013-1","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096055197000131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

One of the key features of logic programming is the notion of goal-directed provability. In intuitionistic logic, the notion of uniform proof has been used as a proof-theoretic characterization of this property. Whilst the connections between intuitionistic logic and computation are well known, there is no reason per se why a similar notion cannot be given in classical logic. In this paper we show that there are two notions of goal-directed proof in classical logic, both of which are suitably weaker than that for intuitionistic logic. We show the completeness of this class of proofs for certain fragments, which thus form logic programming languages. As there are more possible variations on the notion of goal-directed provability in classical logic, there is a greater diversity of classical logic programming languages than intuitionistic ones. In particular, we show how logic programs may contain disjunctions in this setting. This provides a proof-theoretic basis for disjunctive logic programs, as well as characterising the “disjunctive” nature of answer substitutions for such programs in terms of the provability properties of the classical connectives Λ and Λ.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经典逻辑中的目标可证明性
逻辑编程的关键特征之一是目标导向可证明性的概念。在直觉逻辑中,一致证明的概念被用来作为这一性质的证明论表征。虽然直觉逻辑和计算之间的联系是众所周知的,但没有理由不能在经典逻辑中给出类似的概念。本文证明了经典逻辑中有两个目标指向证明的概念,它们都比直觉逻辑中的目标指向证明的概念弱得多。我们展示了这类证明对于某些片段的完备性,从而形成逻辑程序设计语言。由于经典逻辑中目标可证明性的概念有更多可能的变化,因此经典逻辑编程语言比直觉编程语言的多样性更大。特别地,我们展示了逻辑程序如何在这种情况下包含析取。这为析取逻辑程序提供了一个证明理论基础,并根据经典连接词Λ和Λ的可证明性特性描述了这类程序的答案替换的“析取”性质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
State inference for dynamically changing interfaces LAILA: a language for coordinating abductive reasoning among logic agents Index to Volume 27, 2001 Argos: an automaton-based synchronous language Visual temporal logic as a rapid prototyping tool
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1