Are you an EPFL student looking for a semester project?
Work with us on data science and visualisation projects, and deploy your project as an app on top of GraphSearch.
Concept
Negation as failure
Summary
Negation as failure (NAF, for short) is a non-monotonic inference rule in logic programming, used to derive (i.e. that is assumed not to hold) from failure to derive . Note that can be different from the statement of the logical negation of , depending on the completeness of the inference algorithm and thus also on the formal logic system.
Negation as failure has been an important feature of logic programming since the earliest days of both Planner and Prolog. In Prolog, it is usually implemented using Prolog's extralogical constructs.
More generally, this kind of negation is known as weak negation, in contrast with the strong (i.e. explicit, provable) negation.
In Planner, negation as failure could be implemented as follows:
if (not (goal p)), then (assert ¬p)
which says that if an exhaustive search to prove p fails, then assert ¬p. This states that proposition p shall be assumed as "not true" in any subsequent processing. However, Planner not being based on a logical model, a logical interpretation of the preceding remains obscure.
In pure Prolog, NAF literals of the form can occur in the body of clauses and can be used to derive other NAF literals. For example, given only the four clauses
NAF derives , and as well as and .
The semantics of NAF remained an open issue until 1978, when Keith Clark showed that it is correct with respect to the completion of the logic program, where, loosely speaking, "only" and are interpreted as "if and only if", written as "iff" or "".
For example, the completion of the four clauses above is
The NAF inference rule simulates reasoning explicitly with the completion, where both sides of the equivalence are negated and negation on the right-hand side is distributed down to atomic formulae. For example, to show , NAF simulates reasoning with the equivalences
In the non-propositional case, the completion needs to be augmented with equality axioms, to formalize the assumption that individuals with distinct names are distinct. NAF simulates this by failure of unification.
Official source
About this result
This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.