Let A be a sentence of first order logic containing a
predicate symbol 
which we will write 
.
We write 
for the result of replacing all occurrences of P in A by
the predicate expression 
. (As well as predicate symbols, suitable
-expressions are allowed as predicate expressions).
Definition. The circumscription of P in A(P) is the sentence schema
(1) can be regarded as asserting that the only tuples 
that satisfy P are those that have to -- assuming the sentence A.
Namely, (1) contains a predicate parameter for which
we may subsitute an arbitrary predicate expression. (If we were
using second order logic, there would be a quantifier 
in front
of (1).) Since (1) is an implication, we can assume
both conjuncts on the left, and (1) lets us
conclude the sentence on the right.
The first conjunct expresses the assumption
that satisfies the conditions
satisfied by P, and the second 
expresses
the assumption that the entities satisfying are a subset of those
that satisfy P. The conclusion asserts the converse of the second
conjunct which tells us that in this case, and P must coincide.
We write 
if the sentence q can be obtained by
deduction from the result of circumscribing P in A. As we shall
see 
is a nonmonotonic form of inference, which we shall
call circumscriptive inference.
A slight generalization allows circumscribing several predicates jointly; thus jointly circumscribing P and Q in A(P,Q) leads to
in which we can simultaneously substitute for and 
.
The relation 
is defined in a corresponding way.
Although we don't give examples of joint circumscription in this paper,
we believe it will be important in some AI applications.
Consider the following examples:
Example 1. In the blocks world, the sentence A may be
asserting that A, B and C are blocks. Circumscribing isblock in (2) gives the schema
If we now substitute
into (3) and use (2), the left side of the implication is seen to be true, and this gives
which asserts that the only blocks are A, B and C, i.e. just those
objects that (2) requires to be blocks. This example is rather
trivial, because (2) provides no way of generating new blocks
from old ones. However, it shows that circumscriptive inference is
nonmonotonic since if we adjoin 
to (2), we will no
longer be able to infer (5).
Example 2. Circumscribing the disjunction
leads to
We may then substitute successively 
and 
,
and these give respectively
which simplifies to
and
which simplifies to
which asserts that either A is the only block or B is the only block.
Example 3. Consider the following algebraic axioms for natural numbers, i.e., non-negative integers, appropriate when we aren't supposing that natural numbers are the only objects.
Circumscribing isnatnum in (13) yields
(14) asserts that the only natural numbers are those objects that (13)
forces to be natural numbers, and this is essentially the usual axiom schema of
induction. We can get closer to the usual schema by substituting
. This and (13) make
the second conjunct drop out giving
Example 4. Returning to the blocks world, suppose we have a predicate on(x,y,s) asserting that block x is on block y in situation s. Suppose we have another predicate above(x,y,s) which asserts that block x is above block y in situation s. We may write
and
i.e. above is a transitive relation. Circumscribing above in
(16) 
(17) gives
which tells us that above is the transitive closure of on.
In the preceding two examples, the schemas produced by circumscription play the role of axiom schemas rather than being just conjectures.
