We start with a simple proof of Leivant's normal form theorem for ∑11 formulas over finite successor structures. Then we use that normal form to prove the following:1. over all finite structures, every ∑21 formula is equivalent to a ∑21 formula whose first-order part is a Boolean combination of existential formulas, and2. over finite successor structures, the Kolaitis-Thakur hierarchy of minimization problems collapses completely and the Kolaitis-Thakur hierarchy of maximization problems collapses partially.The normal form theorem for ∑21 fails if ∑21 (...) is replaced with ∑11 or if infinite structures are allowed. (shrink)

As is well known, answer-set programs do not satisfy the replacement property in general, i.e., programs and that are equivalent may cease to be so when they are put in the context of some other program, i.e., and may have different answer sets. Lifschitz, Pearce, and Valverde thus introduced strong equivalence for context-independent equivalence, and proved that such equivalence holds between given programs and iff and are equivalent theories in the monotonic logic of here-and-there. In this article, we consider a (...) related question: given a program, does there exist some program from a certain class of programs such that and are equivalent under a given notion of equivalence? Furthermore, if the answer to this question is positive, how can we recast as an equivalent program from? In particular, we consider classes of programs that emerge by allowing disjunction and/or negation, and as equivalence notions we consider strong, uniform, and ordinary equivalence. Based on general model-theoretic properties and a novel form of canonical programs, we develop semantic characterisations for the existence of such a program, determine the computational complexity of checking existence, and provide rewriting rules for recasting. (shrink)

It was conjectured by Halpern and Kapron (Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 69, 1994) that frame satisfiability of propositional modal formulas is incomparable in expressive power to both Σ 1 1 (Ackermann) and Σ 1 1 (Bernays-Schonfinkel). We prove this conjecture. Our results imply that Σ 1 1 (Ackermann) and Σ 1 1 (Bernays-Schonfinkel) are incomparable in expressive power, already on finite graphs. Moreover, we show that on ordered finite graphs, i.e., finite graphs with a successor, Σ 1 (...) 1 (Bernays-Schonfinkel) is strictly more expressive than Σ 1 1 (Ackermann). (shrink)