By Christian Straßer
This publication offers adaptive logics as an intuitive and robust framework for modeling defeasible reasoning. It examines numerous contexts within which defeasible reasoning comes in handy and provides a compact advent into adaptive logics.
The writer first familiarizes readers with defeasible reasoning, the adaptive logics framework, combos of adaptive logics, and a number precious meta-theoretic homes. He then deals a scientific learn of adaptive logics according to a number of functions.
The publication provides formal types for defeasible reasoning stemming from assorted contexts, reminiscent of default reasoning, argumentation, and normative reasoning. It highlights a number of meta-theoretic merits of adaptive logics over different logics or logical frameworks that version defeasible reasoning. during this approach the publication substantiates the prestige of adaptive logics as a established formal framework for defeasible reasoning.
Read or Download Adaptive Logics for Defeasible Reasoning: Applications in Argumentation, Normative Reasoning and Default Reasoning PDF
Best logic books
Statistical Estimation of Epidemiological Risk provides assurance of an important epidemiological indices, and contains contemporary advancements within the field. A useful reference resource for biostatisticians and epidemiologists operating in disorder prevention, because the chapters are self-contained and have quite a few actual examples.
This paintings introduces the topic of formal common sense in terms of a method that's "like syllogistic logic". Its approach, like outdated, conventional syllogistic, is a "term logic". The authors' model of good judgment ("term-function logic", TFL) stocks with Aristotle's syllogistic the perception that the logical varieties of statements which are excited by inferences as premises or conclusions could be construed because the results of connecting pairs of phrases through a logical copula (functor).
- Methods of Criminological Research (Contemporary Social Research Series ; 19)
- A Resolution Principle for a Logic with Restricted Quantifiers
- Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Volume 1. Princeton Mathematical Series (Pt.1)
- Comentarios Psicologicos sobre las ensenanzas de Gurdjieff y Ouspensky, Vol. 2 Spanish
- What Is Mathematical Logic?
Extra info for Adaptive Logics for Defeasible Reasoning: Applications in Argumentation, Normative Reasoning and Default Reasoning
Since we want to keep things simple we treat ◦ as a dummy operator and hence don’t attach any logical properties to ◦. As a lower limit logic we employ classical propositional logic CL equipped with ◦. 4 The semantics of CL◦ is like the semantics for CL, just besides the usual assignment function v that assigns to each propositional letter a truth value, we also use an enhanced assignment function v◦ that (independently from v) associates each well-formed formula with a truth-value. Truth in a model M is defined as usual for the classical operators: 4 In  we show that CL◦ gives rise to very simple ALs that represent the Rescher-Manor consequence relations .
Viewed in this way, we only have a ‘deductive’ logic in which we formally distinguish between two types of premises. The adaptive marking then handles which parts of the uncertain basis may be considered safe in specific inferences and retracts inferences that are based on unsafe assumptions. Let us demonstrate this with a familiar example. n} ∅ ∅ On the right side we use two premise introduction rules: PREM1 for the premises in the solid base Γ and PREM2 for the premises in the uncertain premise set Ω ¬ˇ.
In the last column we keep a record of the used “uncertain” premises. , deductive) inferences that stem from the lower limit logic. DS is disjunctive syllogism (we could have also just written RU since DS is valid in the lower limit logic enriched by the “checked connectives”). The question which parts of the uncertain premise set can be considered safe for a given inference is analogous to the determination of the marking of lines. For instance, according to the minimal abnormality strategy a line l with formula A and a record Δ ↓ Ω ¬ˇ is marked at stage s iff, (i) there is no ϕ ∈ Φs (Γ ) for which A similar distinction can be found for instance in the ASPIC+ -framework [27, 28] where we find an ‘ordinary’ knowledge base K p that is uncertain and an ‘axiomatic’ solid knowledge base Kn .