Capturing k-ary Existential Second Order Logic with k-ary Inclusion-Exclusion Logic

In this paper we analyze k-ary inclusion-exclusion logic, INEX[k], which is obtained by extending first order logic with k-ary inclusion and exclusion atoms. We show that every formula of INEX[k] can be expressed with a formula of k-ary existential second order logic, ESO[k]. Conversely, every formula of ESO[k] with at most k-ary free relation variables can be expressed with a formula of INEX[k]. From this it follows that, on the level of sentences, INEX[k] captures the expressive power of ESO[k]. We also introduce several useful operators that can be expressed in INEX[k]. In particular, we define inclusion and exclusion quantifiers and so-called term value preserving disjunction which is essential for the proofs of the main results in this paper. Furthermore, we present a novel method of relativization for team semantics and analyze the duality of inclusion and exclusion atoms.Comment: Extended version of a paper published in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 169 (3), 177-21

The Expressive Power of k-ary Exclusion Logic

In this paper we study the expressive power of k-ary exclusion logic, EXC[k], that is obtained by extending first order logic with k-ary exclusion atoms. It is known that without arity bounds exclusion logic is equivalent with dependence logic. By observing the translations, we see that the expressive power of EXC[k] lies in between k-ary and (k+1)-ary dependence logics. We will show that, at least in the case of k=1, the both of these inclusions are proper. In a recent work by the author it was shown that k-ary inclusion-exclusion logic is equivalent with k-ary existential second order logic, ESO[k]. We will show that, on the level of sentences, it is possible to simulate inclusion atoms with exclusion atoms, and this way express ESO[k]-sentences by using only k-ary exclusion atoms. For this translation we also need to introduce a novel method for "unifying" the values of certain variables in a team. As a consequence, EXC[k] captures ESO[k] on the level of sentences, and we get a strict arity hierarchy for exclusion logic. It also follows that k-ary inclusion logic is strictly weaker than EXC[k]. Finally we will use similar techniques to formulate a translation from ESO[k] to k-ary inclusion logic with strict semantics. Consequently, for any arity fragment of inclusion logic, strict semantics is more expressive than lax semantics.Comment: Preprint of a paper in the special issue of WoLLIC2016 in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 170(9):1070-1099, 201

A Fragment of Dependence Logic Capturing Polynomial Time

In this paper we study the expressive power of Horn-formulae in dependence logic and show that they can express NP-complete problems. Therefore we define an even smaller fragment D-Horn* and show that over finite successor structures it captures the complexity class P of all sets decidable in polynomial time. Furthermore we study the question which of our results can ge generalized to the case of open formulae of D-Horn* and so-called downwards monotone polynomial time properties of teams

On the Union Closed Fragment of Existential Second-Order Logic and Logics with Team Semantics

We present syntactic characterisations for the union closed fragments of existential second-order logic and of logics with team semantics. Since union closure is a semantical and undecidable property, the normal form we introduce enables the handling and provides a better understanding of this fragment. We also introduce inclusion-exclusion games that turn out to be precisely the corresponding model-checking games. These games are not only interesting in their own right, but they also are a key factor towards building a bridge between the semantic and syntactic fragments. On the level of logics with team semantics we additionally present restrictions of inclusion-exclusion logic to capture the union closed fragment. Moreover, we define a team based atom that when adding it to first-order logic also precisely captures the union closed fragment of existential second-order logic which answers an open question by Galliani and Hella

Safe Dependency Atoms and Possibility Operators in Team Semantics

I consider the question of which dependencies are safe for a Team Semantics-based logic FO(D), in the sense that they do not increase its expressive power over sentences when added to it. I show that some dependencies, like totality, non-constancy and non-emptiness, are safe for all logics FO(D), and that other dependencies, like constancy, are not safe for FO(D) for some choices of D despite being strongly first order. I furthermore show that the possibility operator, which holds in a team if and only if its argument holds in some nonempty subteam, can be added to any logic FO(D) without increasing its expressive power over sentences.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2018, arXiv:1809.0241

Tractability Frontier of Data Complexity in Team Semantics

Peer reviewe