Embedding default logic in propositional argumentation systems
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we present a transformation of finite propositional default theories into socalled propositional argumentation systems. This transformation allows to characterize all notions of Reiter’s default logic in the framework of argumentation systems. As a consequence, computing extensions, or determining wether a given formula belongs to one extension or all extensions can be answered without leaving the field of classical propositional logic. The transformation proposed is linear in the number of defaults.
منابع مشابه
Embedding Default Theories in Propositional Argumentation Systems
In this paper we present a transformation of propositional default theories into so-called propositional argumentation systems. This transformation allows to characterize all notions of Reiter’s default logic in the framework of argumentation systems. This means that computing extension, or determining if a given formula belongs to one extension or all extensions can be answered without leaving...
متن کاملPropositional Argumentation Systems vs Theorist
Propositional argumentation systems are based on assumption based reasoning and used for computing arguments which support a given hypotheses Assumption based reasoning is closely related to hypothetical default theories or inference through theory formation The latter approach known as the Theorist frame work has well known relations to abduction and default reasoning In this paper proposition...
متن کاملEquality propositional logic and its extensions
We introduce a new formal logic, called equality propositional logic. It has two basic connectives, $boldsymbol{wedge}$ (conjunction) and $equiv$ (equivalence). Moreover, the $Rightarrow$ (implication) connective can be derived as $ARightarrow B:=(Aboldsymbol{wedge}B)equiv A$. We formulate the equality propositional logic and demonstrate that the resulting logic has reasonable properties such a...
متن کاملBuilding Argumentation Systems on Set Constraint Logic
The purpose of this paper is to show how the theory of probabilistic argumentation systems can be extended from propositional logic to the more general framework of set constraint logic. The strength of set constraint logic is that logical relations between non-binary variables can be expressed more directly. This simplifies the classical way of modeling knowledge through propositional logic. B...
متن کاملEmbedding negation as failure into minimal knowledge
Recent studies in nonmonotonic reasoning have shown that many of the best known nonmonotonic logics are based on the same two fundamental principles, i.e. minimal knowledge and negation as failure (or negation by default). In this paper we prove that it is possible to express negation as failure in terms of minimal knowledge. Specifically, we present a polynomial, non-faithful, modular embeddin...
متن کامل