|
Nonmonotonic Reasoning
A non-monotonic logic is a formal logic whose conclusion relation is not monotonic. In other words, non-monotonic logics are devised to capture and represent defeasible inferences (cf. defeasible reasoning), i.e., a kind of inference in which reasoners draw tentative conclusions, enabling reasoners to retract their conclusion(s) based on further evidence. Most studied formal logics have a monotonic entailment relation, meaning that adding a formula to a theory never produces a pruning of its set of conclusions. Intuitively, monotonicity indicates that learning a new piece of knowledge cannot reduce the set of what is known. A monotonic logic cannot handle various reasoning tasks such as reasoning by default (conclusions may be derived only because of lack of evidence of the contrary), abductive reasoning (conclusions are only deduced as most likely explanations), some important approaches to reasoning about knowledge (the ignorance of a conclusion must be retracted when the c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Formal Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or of logical truths. It is a formal science investigating how conclusions follow from premises in a topic-neutral way. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Formal logic contrasts with informal logic, which is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. While there is no general agreement on how formal and informal logic are to be distinguished, one prominent approach associates their difference with whether the studied arguments are expressed in formal or informal languages. Logic plays a central role in multiple fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises together with a conclusion. Premises and conclusions are usually under ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Belief Revision
Belief revision is the process of changing beliefs to take into account a new piece of information. The logical formalization of belief revision is researched in philosophy, in databases, and in artificial intelligence for the design of rational agents. What makes belief revision non-trivial is that several different ways for performing this operation may be possible. For example, if the current knowledge includes the three facts "A is true", "B is true" and "if A and B are true then C is true", the introduction of the new information "C is false" can be done preserving consistency only by removing at least one of the three facts. In this case, there are at least three different ways for performing revision. In general, there may be several different ways for changing knowledge. Revision and update Two kinds of changes are usually distinguished: ; update : the new information is about the situation at present, while the old beliefs refer to the past; update is the operation of chan ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or of logical truths. It is a formal science investigating how conclusions follow from premises in a topic-neutral way. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Formal logic contrasts with informal logic, which is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. While there is no general agreement on how formal and informal logic are to be distinguished, one prominent approach associates their difference with whether the studied arguments are expressed in formal or informal languages. Logic plays a central role in multiple fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises together with a conclusion. Premises and conclusions are usually un ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Formal Epistemology
Formal epistemology uses formal methods from decision theory, logic, probability theory and computability theory to model and reason about issues of epistemological interest. Work in this area spans several academic fields, including philosophy, computer science, economics, and statistics. The focus of formal epistemology has tended to differ somewhat from that of traditional epistemology, with topics like uncertainty, induction, and belief revision garnering more attention than the analysis of knowledge, skepticism, and issues with justification. History Though formally oriented epistemologists have been laboring since the emergence of formal logic and probability theory (if not earlier), only recently have they been organized under a common disciplinary title. This gain in popularity may be attributed to the organization of yearly Formal Epistemology Workshops by Branden Fitelson and Sahotra Sarkar, starting in 2004, and the PHILOG-conferences starting in 2002 (The Network for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rational Consequence Relation
In logic, a rational consequence relation is a non-monotonic consequence relation satisfying certain properties listed below. Properties A rational consequence relation \vdash satisfies: :; REF : Reflexivity \theta \vdash \theta and the so-called Gabbay-Makinson rules: :; LLE : Left Logical Equivalence \frac :; RWE : Right-hand weakening \frac :; CMO : Cautious monotonicity \frac :; DIS : Logical or (ie disjunction) on left hand side \frac :; AND : Logical and on right hand side \frac :; RMO : Rational monotonicity \frac Uses The rational consequence relation is non-monotonic, and the relation \theta \vdash \phi is intended to carry the meaning ''theta usually implies phi'' or ''phi usually follows from theta''. In this sense it is more useful for modeling some everyday situations than a monotone consequence relation because the latter relation models facts in a more strict boolean fashion - something either follows under all circumstances or it does not. Example The state ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Stable Model Semantics
The concept of a stable model, or answer set, is used to define a declarative semantics for logic programs with negation as failure. This is one of several standard approaches to the meaning of negation in logic programming, along with program completion and the well-founded semantics. The stable model semantics is the basis of answer set programming. Motivation Research on the declarative semantics of negation in logic programming was motivated by the fact that the behavior of SLDNF resolution — the generalization of SLD resolution used by Prolog in the presence of negation in the bodies of rules — does not fully match the truth tables familiar from classical propositional logic. Consider, for instance, the program :p\ :r \leftarrow p,\ q :s \leftarrow p,\ \operatorname q. Given this program, the query will succeed, because the program includes as a fact; the query will fail, because it does not occur in the head of any of the rules. The query will fail also ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Negation As Failure
Negation as failure (NAF, for short) is a non-monotonic inference rule in logic programming, used to derive \mathrm~p (i.e. that ~p is assumed not to hold) from failure to derive ~p. Note that \mathrm ~p can be different from the statement \neg p of the logical negation of ~p, depending on the completeness of the inference algorithm and thus also on the formal logic system. Negation as failure has been an important feature of logic programming since the earliest days of both Planner and Prolog. In Prolog, it is usually implemented using Prolog's extralogical constructs. More generally, this kind of negation is known as weak negation, in contrast with the strong (i.e. explicit, provable) negation. Planner semantics In Planner, negation as failure could be implemented as follows: :''if'' (''not'' (''goal'' p)), ''then'' (''assert'' ¬p) which says that if an exhaustive search to prove p fails, then assert ¬p. This states that proposition p shall be assumed as "not true" in any ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logic Programming
Logic programming is a programming paradigm which is largely based on formal logic. Any program written in a logic programming language is a set of sentences in logical form, expressing facts and rules about some problem domain. Major logic programming language families include Prolog, answer set programming (ASP) and Datalog. In all of these languages, rules are written in the form of ''clauses'': :H :- B1, …, Bn. and are read declaratively as logical implications: :H if B1 and … and Bn. H is called the ''head'' of the rule and B1, ..., Bn is called the ''body''. Facts are rules that have no body, and are written in the simplified form: :H. In the simplest case in which H, B1, ..., Bn are all atomic formulae, these clauses are called definite clauses or Horn clauses. However, there are many extensions of this simple case, the most important one being the case in which conditions in the body of a clause can also be negations of atomic formulas. Logic programming languag ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Paraconsistent Logics
A paraconsistent logic is an attempt at a logical system to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing "inconsistency-tolerant" systems of logic which reject the principle of explosion. Inconsistency-tolerant logics have been discussed since at least 1910 (and arguably much earlier, for example in the writings of Aristotle); however, the term ''paraconsistent'' ("beside the consistent") was first coined in 1976, by the Peruvian philosopher Francisco Miró Quesada Cantuarias. The study of paraconsistent logic has been dubbed paraconsistency, which encompasses the school of dialetheism. Definition In classical logic (as well as intuitionistic logic and most other logics), contradictions entail everything. This feature, known as the principle of explosion or ''ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet'' (Latin, "from a contradiction, anything follows") can be expressed formall ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Autoepistemic Logic
The autoepistemic logic is a formal logic for the representation and reasoning of knowledge about knowledge. While propositional logic can only express facts, autoepistemic logic can express knowledge and lack of knowledge about facts. The stable model semantics, which is used to give a semantics to logic programming with negation as failure, can be seen as a simplified form of autoepistemic logic. Syntax The syntax of autoepistemic logic extends that of propositional logic by a modal operator \BoxTo clarify, the modal operator \Box is a medium white square; this is not a browser rendering issue indicating knowledge: if F is a formula, \Box F indicates that F is known. As a result, \Box \neg F indicates that \neg F is known and \neg \Box F indicates that F is not known. This syntax is used for allowing reasoning based on knowledge of facts. For example, \neg \Box F \rightarrow \neg F means that F is assumed false if it is not known to be true. This is a form of negation as failur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logical Conclusion
Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically ''follows from'' one or more statements. A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises?Beall, JC and Restall, Greg, Logical Consequence' The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). All of philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth. Logical consequence is necessary and formal, by way of examples that explain with formal proof and models of interpretation. A sentence is said to be a logical consequ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Abductive Reasoning
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,For example: abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference formulated and advanced by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce beginning in the last third of the 19th century. It starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation, although not all usages of the terms ''abduction'' and ''inference to the best explanation'' are exactly equivalent. In the 1990s, as computing power grew, the fields of law, computer science, and artificial intelligence researchFor examples, seeAbductive Inference i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
