We define a novel, extensional, three-valued semantics for higher-order logic programs with negation. The new semantics is based on interpreting the types of the source language as three-valued Fitting-monotonic functions at all levels of the type hierarchy. We prove that there exists a bijection between such Fitting-monotonic functions and pairs of two-valued-result functions where the first member of the pair is monotone-antimonotone and the second member is antimonotone-monotone. By deriving an extension of consistent approximation fixpoint theory (Denecker et al. 2004) and utilizing the above bijection, we define an iterative procedure that produces for any given higher-order logic program a distinguished extensional model. We demonstrate that this model is actually a minimal one. Moreover, we prove that our construction generalizes the familiar well-founded semantics for classical logic programs, making in this way our proposal an appealing formulation for capturing the well-founded semantics for higher-order logic programs.

M. Bezem defined an extensional semantics for positive higher-order logic programs. Recently, it was demonstrated by Rondogiannis and Symeonidou that Bezem's technique can be extended to higher-order logic programs with negation, retaining its extensional properties, provided that it is interpreted under a logic with an infinite number of truth values. Rondogiannis and Symeonidou also demonstrated that Bezem's technique, when extended under the stable model semantics, does not in general lead to extensional stable models. In this paper, we consider the problem of extending Bezem's technique under the well-founded semantics. We demonstrate that the well-founded extension fails to retain extensionality in the general case. On the positive side, we demonstrate that for stratified higher-order logic programs, extensionality is indeed achieved. We analyze the reasons of the failure of extensionality in the general case, arguing that a three-valued setting cannot distinguish between certain predicates that appear to have a different behaviour inside a program context, but which happen to be identical as three-valued relations.

This paper looks at logic programming with three kinds of negation: default, weak and strict negations. A 3-valued logic model theory is discussed for logic programs with three kinds of negation. The procedure is constructed for negations so that a soundness of the procedure is guaranteed in terms of 3-valued logic model theory.

We advocate a declarative approach to proving properties of logic programs. Total correctness can be separated into correctness, completeness and clean termination; the latter includes non-floundering. Only clean termination depends on the operational semantics, in particular on the selection rule. We show how to deal with correctness and completeness in a declarative way, treating programs only from the logical point of view. Specifications used in this approach are interpretations (or theories). We point out that specifications for correctness may differ from those for completeness, as usually there are answers which are neither considered erroneous nor required to be computed. We present proof methods for correctness and completeness for definite programs and generalize them to normal programs. For normal programs we use the 3-valued completion semantics; this is a standard semantics corresponding to negation as finite failure. The proof methods employ solely the classical 2-valued logic. We use a 2-valued characterization of the 3-valued completion semantics, which may be of separate interest. The method of proving correctness of definite programs is not new and can be traced back to the work of clark in 1979. However a more complicated approach using operational semantics was proposed by some authors. We show that it is not stronger than the declarative one, as far as properties of program answers are concerned. For a corresponding operational approach to normal programs, we show that it is (strictly) weaker than our method. We also employ the ideas of this work to generalize a known method of proving termination of normal programs.