paraconsistent

# F consequence function tp on consistent partial

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: onsistent partial interpretations de ned as follows: 13 De nition 19 Let I be a partial interpretation. Then TPF (I ) is a partial interpretation, given by F TP (I )+ = fa j for some clause a l1; : : : ; lm in P ?, for each i; 1 i m, if li is positive then li 2 I +, and if li is negative then li0 2 I ?g; F TP (I )? = fa j for every clause a l1; : : : ; lm in P ?, there is some i; 1 i m, such that if li is positive then li 2 I ?, and if li is negative then li0 2 I +g: 2 F It can be shown that TP preserves consistency and always possesses a least xpoint. This least xpoint is called the weak well-founded model for P . The model can also be shown F F to be TP &quot; !, where the ordinal powers of TP are de ned as follows: De nition 20 For any ordinal , 8 &gt; h;; ;i &lt; F &quot; = T F (T F &quot; ( ? 1)) TP &gt;P PF : h &lt; (T &quot; )+; P &lt; if = 0, if is a successor ordinal, F (TP &quot; )?i if is a limit ordinal. 2 In 1], the upward closure ordinal of the immediate consequence function is de ned as F F the least ordinal such that TP &quot; is a xpoint of TP . The following observation for deductive databases is relevant: Proposition 7 For any general deductive database P , the upward closure ordinal of TPF F F is nite, i.e. there is a number n 0, such that TP &quot; n = TP &quot; !. 2 F Thus a mechanism that \computes&quot; the ordinal powers of TP can be employed to construct the weak well-founded model of P . Construction of the Weak Well-founded Model We now describe a method for constructing the weak well-founded model for a given general deductive database P . In this model, paraconsistent relations are the semantic objects associated with the predicate symbols occurring in P . The method involves two steps. The rst step is to convert P into a set of paraconsistent relation de nitions for the predicate symbols occurring in P . These de nitions are of the form p = Dp ; 14 where p is a predicate symbol of P , and Dp is an algebraic expression involving predicate symbols of P and paraconsistent relation operators. The second step is to iteratively evaluate the expressions in these de nitions to incrementally construct the paraconsistent relations associated with the predicate symbols. A scheme is a Herbrand scheme if dom(A) is the Herbrand Universe, for all A 2 . The schemes of the paraconsistent relations that we associate with the predicate symbols are set internally. Let ? = h 1; 2 ; : : :i be an in nite sequence of some distinct attribute names. For any n 1, let ?n be the Herbrand scheme f 1 ; : : : ; ng. We use the following scheme renaming operators. De nition 21 Let = fA1 ; : : : ; Ang be any Herbrand scheme. Then, (a) for any paraconsistent relation R on scheme ?n, R(A1 ; : : : ; An) is the paraconsistent relation h ft 2 ( ) j for some t0 2 R+; t(Ai) = t0 ( i); for all i; 1 i ng; ft 2 ( ) j for some t0 2 R?; t(Ai) = t0 ( i); for all i; 1 i ng i on scheme , and (b) for any paraconsistent relation R on scheme , R A1 ; : : : ; An] is the...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online