Abstract State Machines 1988-1998: Commented ASM Bibliography

An annotated bibliography of papers which deal with or use Abstract State Machines (ASMs), as of January 1998.Comment: Also maintained as a BibTeX file at http://www.eecs.umich.edu/gasm

A functional quantum programming language

We introduce the language QML, a functional language for quantum computations on finite types. Its design is guided by its categorical semantics: QML programs are interpreted by morphisms in the category FQC of finite quantum computations, which provides a constructive semantics of irreversible quantum computations realisable as quantum gates. QML integrates reversible and irreversible quantum computations in one language, using first order strict linear logic to make weakenings explicit. Strict programs are free from decoherence and hence preserve superpositions and entanglement - which is essential for quantum parallelism.Comment: 15 pages. Final version, to appear in Logic in Computer Science 200

On the Semantics of Gringo

Input languages of answer set solvers are based on the mathematically simple concept of a stable model. But many useful constructs available in these languages, including local variables, conditional literals, and aggregates, cannot be easily explained in terms of stable models in the sense of the original definition of this concept and its straightforward generalizations. Manuals written by designers of answer set solvers usually explain such constructs using examples and informal comments that appeal to the user's intuition, without references to any precise semantics. We propose to approach the problem of defining the semantics of gringo programs by translating them into the language of infinitary propositional formulas. This semantics allows us to study equivalent transformations of gringo programs using natural deduction in infinitary propositional logic.Comment: Proceedings of Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2013), 6th International Workshop, August 25, 2013, Istanbul, Turke

Anaphora and the Logic of Change

This paper shows how the dynamic interpretation of natural language introduced in work by Hans Kamp and Irene Heim can be modeled in classical type logic. This provides a synthesis between Richard Montague's theory of natural language semantics and the work by Kamp and Heim

Combining Static and Dynamic Contract Checking for Curry

Static type systems are usually not sufficient to express all requirements on function calls. Hence, contracts with pre- and postconditions can be used to express more complex constraints on operations. Contracts can be checked at run time to ensure that operations are only invoked with reasonable arguments and return intended results. Although such dynamic contract checking provides more reliable program execution, it requires execution time and could lead to program crashes that might be detected with more advanced methods at compile time. To improve this situation for declarative languages, we present an approach to combine static and dynamic contract checking for the functional logic language Curry. Based on a formal model of contract checking for functional logic programming, we propose an automatic method to verify contracts at compile time. If a contract is successfully verified, dynamic checking of it can be omitted. This method decreases execution time without degrading reliable program execution. In the best case, when all contracts are statically verified, it provides trust in the software since crashes due to contract violations cannot occur during program execution.Comment: Pre-proceedings paper presented at the 27th International Symposium on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR 2017), Namur, Belgium, 10-12 October 2017 (arXiv:1708.07854

Logic programming in the context of multiparadigm programming: the Oz experience

Oz is a multiparadigm language that supports logic programming as one of its major paradigms. A multiparadigm language is designed to support different programming paradigms (logic, functional, constraint, object-oriented, sequential, concurrent, etc.) with equal ease. This article has two goals: to give a tutorial of logic programming in Oz and to show how logic programming fits naturally into the wider context of multiparadigm programming. Our experience shows that there are two classes of problems, which we call algorithmic and search problems, for which logic programming can help formulate practical solutions. Algorithmic problems have known efficient algorithms. Search problems do not have known efficient algorithms but can be solved with search. The Oz support for logic programming targets these two problem classes specifically, using the concepts needed for each. This is in contrast to the Prolog approach, which targets both classes with one set of concepts, which results in less than optimal support for each class. To explain the essential difference between algorithmic and search programs, we define the Oz execution model. This model subsumes both concurrent logic programming (committed-choice-style) and search-based logic programming (Prolog-style). Instead of Horn clause syntax, Oz has a simple, fully compositional, higher-order syntax that accommodates the abilities of the language. We conclude with lessons learned from this work, a brief history of Oz, and many entry points into the Oz literature.Comment: 48 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

Logic Programming Approaches for Representing and Solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems: A Comparison

Many logic programming based approaches can be used to describe and solve combinatorial search problems. On the one hand there is constraint logic programming which computes a solution as an answer substitution to a query containing the variables of the constraint satisfaction problem. On the other hand there are systems based on stable model semantics, abductive systems, and first order logic model generators which compute solutions as models of some theory. This paper compares these different approaches from the point of view of knowledge representation (how declarative are the programs) and from the point of view of performance (how good are they at solving typical problems).Comment: 15 pages, 3 eps-figure