Well-founded semantics vs. stable models. The stable model semantics for negation-as- failure is that given a KB of formulas for chaining with rules featuring "naf'd literals" (not ) in their bodies, use an assignment of every not to a Boolean value be E 10,1 such that when we replace each not & with be, then i. If not is assigned 1, then there is no chaining proof of & from this modified KB and ii. If not l is assigned 0, then there is a chaining proof of e from this modified KB. We say that this assignment of Boolean values to naf'd literals is a stable model. Unlike the well-founded semantics, this assignment of Boolean values to naf'd literals does not always exist, and when it does exist, is not always unique. Show that the partial assignment of literals to Boolean values given by the well-founded semantics for such a KB is always consistent with any stable model for the KB. Well-founded semantics vs. stable models. The stable model semantics for negation-as- failure is that given a KB of formulas for chaining with rules featuring "naf'd literals" (not ) in their bodies, use an assignment of every not to a Boolean value be E 10,1 such that when we replace each not & with be, then i. If not is assigned 1, then there is no chaining proof of & from this modified KB and ii. If not l is assigned 0, then there is a chaining proof of e from this modified KB. We say that this assignment of Boolean values to naf'd literals is a stable model. Unlike the well-founded semantics, this assignment of Boolean values to naf'd literals does not always exist, and when it does exist, is not always unique. Show that the partial assignment of literals to Boolean values given by the well-founded semantics for such a KB is always consistent with any stable model for the KB