Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

On the complexity of entailment in propositional multivalued logics

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multivalued logics have a long tradition in the philosophy and logic literature that originates from the work by Łukaszewicz in the 1920s. More recently, many AI researchers have been interested in this topic for both semantic and computational reasons. Multivalued logics have indeed been frequently used both for their semantic properties and as tools for designing tractable reasoning systems. We focus here on the computational aspects of multivalued logics. The main result of this paper is a detailed picture of the impact that the semantic definition, the synthactic form and the assumptions on the relative sizes of the inputs have on the complexity of entailment checking. In particular we show new polynomial cases and generalize polynomial cases already known in the literature for various popular multivalued logics. Such polynomial cases are obtained by means of two simple algorithms, sharing a common method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. A. Anderson and N. Belnap,Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  2. N. Belnap, A useful four-valued logic, in:Modern Uses of Many-Valued Logics, eds. G. Eppstein and J. Dunn (Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1977) pp. 8–37.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Boppana and M. Sipser, The complexity of finite functions, in:Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, ed. J. van Leeuwen. Vol. A, Chapter 14 (Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North-Holland, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Cadoli and M. Schaerf, Approximate inference in default reasoning and circumscription, in:Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-92) (August 1992) pp. 319–323. Full version appears inFundamenta Informaticae 23 (1995) 123–143.

  5. M. Cadoli and M. Schaerf, Approximate reasoning and non-omniscient agents, in:Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK-92) (1992) pp. 169–183. Full version appears inArtificial Intelligence Journal 74 (1995) 249–310.

  6. M. Cadoli and M. Schaerf, Approximation in concept description languages, in:Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-92), eds. B. Nebel, C. Rich and W. Swartout (October 1992) pp. 330–341.

  7. S.A. Cook, The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, in:Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Theory Of Computing (STOC-71) (1971) pp. 151–158.

  8. M. Dalal, Efficient propositional constraint propagation, in:Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92) (1992) pp. 409–414.

  9. W.P. Dowling and J.H. Gallier, Linear-time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional Horn formulae,Journal of Logic Programming 1 (1984) 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. Fagin, J.Y. Halpern and M.Y. Vardi, A nonstandard approach to the logical omniscience problem, in:Proceedings of the Third Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK-90) (1990) pp. 41–55.

  11. M. Fitting, A Kripke-Kleene semantics for logic programs,Journal of Logic Programming 2 (1985) 295–312.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A.M. Frisch, Using model theory to specify AI programs, in:Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-85) (1985) pp. 148–154.

  13. A.M. Frisch, Inference without chaining, in:Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-87) (1987) pp. 515–519.

  14. M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson,Computers and Intractability, A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  15. M.L. Ginsberg, Multivalued logics: A uniform approach to reasoning in artificial intelligence,Computational Intelligence 4 (1988) 265–316.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Hintikka, Impossible possible worlds vindicated,Journal of Philosophical Logic 4 (1975) 475–484.

    Google Scholar 

  17. E. Horowitz and S. Sahni,Fundamentals of Data Strctures (Pitman, London, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Kifer and E.L. Lozinskii, A logic for reasoning with inconsistency,Journal of Automated Reasoning 9(2) (November 1992) 179–215.

    Google Scholar 

  19. G. Lakemeyer, Tractable meta-reasoning in propositional logics of belief, in:Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-87) (1987) pp. 402–408.

  20. H.J. Levesque, A logic of implicit and explicit belief, in:Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84) (1984) pp. 198–202.

  21. H.J. Levesque, Logic and the complexity of reasoning,Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 (1988) 355–389.

    Google Scholar 

  22. H.J. Levesque, A knowledge-level account of abduction, in:Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89) (1989) pp. 1061–1067.

  23. P.F. Patel-Schneider, A four-valued semantics for terminological logic,Artificial Intelligence Journal 38 (1989) 319–351.

    Google Scholar 

  24. P.F. Patel-Schneider, A decidable first-order logic for knowledge representation,Journal of Automated Reasoning 6 (1990) 361–388.

    Google Scholar 

  25. T. Przymusinski, Three-valued formalizations of non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming, in:Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-89) (1989) pp. 341–348.

  26. A. van Gelder, K.A. Ross and J.S. Schlipf, The well-founded semantics for general logic programs,Journal of the ACM 38 (1991) 620–650.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M.Y. Vardi, The complexity of relational query languages, in:Proceedings of the 14th ACM Symposyum on Theory Of Computing (STOC-82) (1982) pp. 137–146.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Via Salaria 113, I-00198, Roma, Italy

    Marco Cadoli & Marco Schaerf

Authors
  1. Marco Cadoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Schaerf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cadoli, M., Schaerf, M. On the complexity of entailment in propositional multivalued logics. Ann Math Artif Intell 18, 29–50 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02136173

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02136173

Keywords

Search

Navigation