Towards a Systematic Account of Different Semantics for Logic Programs

In [Hitzler and Wendt 2002, 2005], a new methodology has been proposed which allows to derive uniform characterizations of different declarative semantics for logic programs with negation. One result from this work is that the well-founded semantics can formally be understood as a stratified version of the Fitting (or Kripke-Kleene) semantics. The constructions leading to this result, however, show a certain asymmetry which is not readily understood. We will study this situation here with the result that we will obtain a coherent picture of relations between different semantics for normal logic programs.Comment: 20 page

Formalizing Two Generalized Approximation Operators

Rough sets, developed by Pawlak [15], are important tool to describe situation of incomplete or partially unknown information. In this article we give the formal characterization of two closely related rough approximations, along the lines proposed in a paper by Gomolińska [2]. We continue the formalization of rough sets in Mizar [1] started in [6].Adam Grabowski - Institute of Informatics, University of Białystok, PolandMichał Sielwiesiuk - Institute of Informatics, University of Białystok, PolandGrzegorz Bancerek, Czesław Byliński, Adam Grabowski, Artur Korniłowicz, Roman Matuszewski, Adam Naumowicz, Karol Pąk, and Josef Urban. Mizar: State-of-the-art and beyond. In Manfred Kerber, Jacques Carette, Cezary Kaliszyk, Florian Rabe, and Volker Sorge, editors, Intelligent Computer Mathematics, volume 9150 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 261–279. Springer International Publishing, 2015. ISBN 978-3-319-20614-1. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20615-8_17.Anna Gomolińska. A comparative study of some generalized rough approximations. Fundamenta Informaticae, 51:103–119, 2002.Adam Grabowski. Automated discovery of properties of rough sets. Fundamenta Informaticae, 128:65–79, 2013. doi:10.3233/FI-2013-933.Adam Grabowski. Lattice theory for rough sets – a case study with Mizar. Fundamenta Informaticae, 147(2–3):223–240, 2016. doi:10.3233/FI-2016-1406.Adam Grabowski. Formalization of generalized almost distributive lattices. Formalized Mathematics, 22(3):257–267, 2014. doi:10.2478/forma-2014-0026.Adam Grabowski. Basic properties of rough sets and rough membership function. Formalized Mathematics, 12(1):21–28, 2004.Adam Grabowski. Relational formal characterization of rough sets. Formalized Mathematics, 21(1):55–64, 2013. doi:10.2478/forma-2013-0006.Adam Grabowski. Binary relations-based rough sets – an automated approach. Formalized Mathematics, 24(2):143–155, 2016. doi:10.1515/forma-2016-0011.Adam Grabowski and Magdalena Jastrzębska. A note on a formal approach to rough operators. In Marcin S. Szczuka and Marzena Kryszkiewicz et al., editors, Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing – 7th International Conference, RSCTC 2010, Warsaw, Poland, June 28-30, 2010. Proceedings, volume 6086 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 307–316. Springer, 2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13529-3_33.Adam Grabowski and Magdalena Jastrzębska. Rough set theory from a math-assistant perspective. In Rough Sets and Intelligent Systems Paradigms, International Conference, RSEISP 2007, Warsaw, Poland, June 28–30, 2007, Proceedings, pages 152–161, 2007. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73451-2_17.Adam Grabowski and Christoph Schwarzweller. On duplication in mathematical repositories. In Serge Autexier, Jacques Calmet, David Delahaye, Patrick D. F. Ion, Laurence Rideau, Renaud Rioboo, and Alan P. Sexton, editors, Intelligent Computer Mathematics, 10th International Conference, AISC 2010, 17th Symposium, Calculemus 2010, and 9th International Conference, MKM 2010, Paris, France, July 5–10, 2010. Proceedings, volume 6167 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 300–314. Springer, 2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14128-7_26.Adam Grabowski and Christoph Schwarzweller. Rough Concept Analysis - theory development in the Mizar system. In Asperti, Andrea and Bancerek, Grzegorz and Trybulec, Andrzej, editor, Mathematical Knowledge Management, Third International Conference, MKM 2004, Bialowieza, Poland, September 19–21, 2004, Proceedings, volume 3119 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 130–144, 2004. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27818-4_10. 3rd International Conference on Mathematical Knowledge Management, Bialowieza, Poland, Sep. 19-21, 2004.Jouni Järvinen. Lattice theory for rough sets. Transactions of Rough Sets, VI, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4374:400–498, 2007.Eliza Niewiadomska and Adam Grabowski. Introduction to formal preference spaces. Formalized Mathematics, 21(3):223–233, 2013. doi:10.2478/forma-2013-0024.Zdzisław Pawlak. Rough sets. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 11:341–356, 1982. doi:10.1007/BF01001956.Y.Y. Yao. Two views of the theory of rough sets in finite universes. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 15(4):291–317, 1996. doi:10.1016/S0888-613X(96)00071-0.William Zhu. Generalized rough sets based on relations. Information Sciences, 177: 4997–5011, 2007.26218319

Other Buds in Membrane Computing

It is well-known the huge Mario’s contribution to the development of Membrane Computing. Many researchers may relate his name to the theory of complexity classes in P systems, the research of frontiers of the tractability or the application of Membrane Computing to model real-life situations as the Quorum Sensing System in Vibrio fischeri or the Bearded Vulture ecosystem. Beyond these research areas, in the last years Mario has presented many new research lines which can be considered as buds in the robust Membrane Computing tree. Many of them were the origin of new research branches, but some others are still waiting to be developed. This paper revisits some of these buds

Languages of lossless seeds

Several algorithms for similarity search employ seeding techniques to quickly discard very dissimilar regions. In this paper, we study theoretical properties of lossless seeds, i.e., spaced seeds having full sensitivity. We prove that lossless seeds coincide with languages of certain sofic subshifts, hence they can be recognized by finite automata. Moreover, we show that these subshifts are fully given by the number of allowed errors k and the seed margin l. We also show that for a fixed k, optimal seeds must asymptotically satisfy l ~ m^(k/(k+1)).Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527

Automatic Ordinals

We prove that the injectively omega-tree-automatic ordinals are the ordinals smaller than $\omega^{\omega^\omega}$. Then we show that the injectively $\omega^n$-automatic ordinals, where $n>0$ is an integer, are the ordinals smaller than $\omega^{\omega^n}$. This strengthens a recent result of Schlicht and Stephan who considered in [Schlicht-Stephan11] the subclasses of finite word $\omega^n$-automatic ordinals. As a by-product we obtain that the hierarchy of injectively $\omega^n$-automatic structures, n>0, which was considered in [Finkel-Todorcevic12], is strict.Comment: To appear in a Special Issue on New Worlds of Computation 2011 of the International Journal of Unconventional Computing. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1111.150