How to define a 

compositional logic

Ingmar Dasseville

Don't force others to repeat your work

DTAI Seminar

09/11/2015

Why?

Adding stuff to an existing logic is hard!

  • Aggregates in ASP
  • Definitions
  • ...

Original motivation: Templates for IDP

This talk

Lots of Haskell Code

  • Forces rigorous definitions
  • Represents definitions in papers
  • Syntax Irrelevant

What is compositional?

Reformulations

Three Valued Logics

Logic = 

   Syntax

+ Semantics

Propositional Logic

data PLogic = Prop String 
            | And PLogic PLogic 
            | Or PLogic PLogic
            | Not PLogic

type Structure = Map String Bool

eval :: Structure -> PLogic -> Bool
eval s (Prop a) = a `isTrueIn` s
eval s (And a b) = (eval s a) && (eval s b)
eval s (Or a b) = (eval s a) || (eval s b)
eval s (Not a) = not (eval s a)

Is this composable?

Frege's Principle

The meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions and the rules used to combine them. 

Wikipedia: Principle of compositionality

Succes?

data PLogic = Prop String 
            | And PLogic PLogic 
            | Or PLogic PLogic
            | Not PLogic

type Structure = Map String Bool

eval :: Structure -> PLogic -> Bool
eval s (Prop a) = a `isTrueIn` s
eval s (And a b) = (eval s a) && (eval s b)
eval s (Or a b) = (eval s a) || (eval s b)
eval s (Not a) = not (eval s a)

  • Frege: YES

  • New language constructs: NO

Let's make it worse...

\forall x : (a \lor x) \land (b \lor \lnot x)
∀x:(a∨x)∧(b∨¬x)\forall x : (a \lor x) \land (b \lor \lnot x)

Quantified Boolean Formulas

(QBF)

Propositional Logic + 

Quantification over boolean domain

QBF Logic

data QBFLogic = Prop String 
            | And QBFLogic QBFLogic 
            | Or QBFLogic QBFLogic
            | Not QBFLogic
            | Forall String QBFLogic

eval :: Structure -> QBFLogic -> Bool
eval s (Prop a) = a `isTrueIn` s
eval s (And a b) = (eval s a) && (eval s b)
eval s (Or a b) = (eval s a) || (eval s b)
eval s (Not a) = not (eval s a)
eval s (Forall x p) = (eval sTrue p) && (eval sFalse p)
			where
				sTrue = s `add` (x,True)
				sFalse = s `add` (x,False)

  • Frege: NO

  • New language constructs: NO

What is compositional?

Reformulations

Three Valued Logics

Frege

Meaning of sentence is a function (Structure →Bool)

New language constructs

Logic =

Set of Language Constructs

 

Language Construct =

Syntax + Semantics

INFON

Requirements

Frege Compliant QBF

type Infon = Structure -> Bool

eval ::  QBFLogic -> Infon
eval (And a b) = liftM2 (&&) (eval a) (eval b)
eval (Or a b) = liftM2 (||) (eval a) (eval b)
eval (Not a) = liftM (not) (eval a)
eval (Forall x p) = liftM2 (&&) infonTrue infonFalse
        where
            infonTrue :: Infon
            infonTrue = (\s -> (eval p) (s `add` (x,True))
            infonFalse :: Infon
            infonFalse = (\s -> (eval p) (s `add` (x,False))

liftM2 :: (Bool -> Bool -> Bool)
        -> (Infon -> Infon -> Infon)

Language Constructs: Data Types

data And a = And a a 
data Prop a = Prop String

Logic = MyLang (MyLang (MyLang(MyLang ...

type (+) = Coproduct
type MyLang a = (Prop + And) a

We need union between And and Prop

type MyLogic = Fix MyLang

Intermezzo: Fix of a datatype

data Container a = S a | Empty 
type Peano = Fix Container 
--Peano =  Container (Container (Container ...

zero = Fix Empty -- 0
one = Fix (S (Fix Empty)) -- S(0)
two = Fix (S (Fix (S (Fix Empty)))) -- S(S(0))

Intermezzo: Catamorphism

eval :: Container Int -> Int
eval Empty = 0
eval (S a) = 1+a

evalPeano :: Peano -> Int
evalPeano = cata eval

cata :: (con a -> a) -> Fix con -> a

> let two = Fix (S (Fix (S (Fix Empty)))) 
> evalPeano two -- eval (S (eval (S (eval Empty))))
2

Frege-compliant function ⇔ catamorphism!

Catamorphisms replace Fix constructor with a function

Semantics

class Semantics a where
    eval :: a -> Infon
instance Semantics (And Infon)  where
    eval (And a b) = liftM2 (&&) a b
instance Semantics (Prop a)  where
    eval (Prop a) = (\s -> a `isTrueIn` s)

⇑Interface for Semantics

Semantics for (Fix (Prop+And))?

Semantics for

Fix (Prop+And)

instance (Semantics (construct Infon),_) 
                    => Semantics (Fix construct) where
    eval :: (Fix construct) -> Infon
    eval = cata (eval :: (construct Infon) -> Infon)

instance (  Semantics (construct1 Infon), 
            Semantics (construct2 Infon)) 
             => Semantics ((construct1+construct2) Infon) where

    eval =  (eval :: (construct1 Infon) -> Infon)
                `coproduct` 
            (eval :: (construct2 Infon) -> Infon)

Some Logics

type PropLogic = Fix (Prop + And + Or + Not)
type QBFLogic = Fix (Prop + And + Or + Not + Forall)


type FO = Fix (Prop + And + Or + Not + Quantify)
type FODOT = FO + (WellFounded FO)

What is compositional?

Reformulations

Three Valued Logics

Bad News

We want (inductive) definitions

Infons are insufficient

TRINFON

Well founded semantics is three valued

type TriBool = Unknown | False | True
type Trinfon = Structure -> TriBool

Good

More Good News

There is a general way to extend an

Infon ⇒ TrInfon

and :: TriBool -> TriBool -> TriBool
and True a = a
and a True = a
and False a = False
and a False = False
and _ _ = Unknown

applied to "And" this results in:

Finally!

Using TrInfons we can construct:

  • FO(.)
  • ASP
  • ...

Templates!

{transitiveClosure(P,Q) ← 
    {Q(x,y) ← P(x,y).
     Q(x,y) ← (∃ z: Q(x,z)∧Q(z,y)).
    }. 
}

What is compositional?

Reformulations

Three Valued Logics

Frege's principle

New Language Constructs

Fixpoint of Coproduct

Catamorphisms

TrInfon

Inductive Definitions

The end

Templates

Compositional Logics

By Ingmar Dasseville

Made with Slides.com

Compositional Logics

  • 1,021

More from Ingmar Dasseville