What Is a Skeptical Proof?
نویسنده
چکیده
We investigate the task of skeptically reasoning in extensionbased, nonmonotonic logics by concentrating on general argumentation theories. The restricted applicability of Dung’s notion of skeptical provability in his well-known argumentation framework is illustrated, and a new approach based on the notion of a claim associated with each argument is proposed. We provide a formal definition of a skeptical proof in our framework. As a concrete formalism, default logic in case of normal default theories is embedded in the general framework. We prove a formal correspondence between the two notions of skeptical provability, which enables us to adopt the general concept of a skeptical proof into
منابع مشابه
Clarifying Mixed Bipolar Multiple Inheritance with Exceptions
The inheritance problem can be simply stated: for any instantiation of an inheritance network , say a speciic hierarchy ? nd a conclusion set for ?. In other words nd out what is logically entailed by ?. This can be done in two ways: either by deening a deductive or proof theoretic deenition to determine what paths are entailed by a network; or by translating the individual links in the network...
متن کاملSkeptical Query-Answering in Constrained Default Logic
An approach to skeptical query-answering in Constrained Default Logic based on the Connection Method is presented. We adapt a recently proposed general method to skeptical reasoning in Default Logics—a method which does neither strictly require the inspection of all extensions nor the computation of entire extensions to decide whether a formula is skeptically entailed. We combine this method wi...
متن کاملProof Complexity of Propositional Default Logic
Default logic is one of the most popular and successful formalisms for non-monotonic reasoning. In 2002, Bonatti and Olivetti introduced several sequent calculi for credulous and skeptical reasoning in propositional default logic. In this paper we examine these calculi from a proof-complexity perspective. In particular, we show that the calculus for credulous reasoning obeys almost the same bou...
متن کاملArgumentation Mechanism Design for Preferred Semantics
Recently Argumentation Mechanism Design (ArgMD) was introduced as a paradigm for studying argumentation using game-theoretic techniques. To date, this framework has been used to study under what conditions a direct mechanism based on Dung’s grounded semantics is strategy-proof (i.e. truth-enforcing) when knowledge of arguments is private to self-interested agents. In this paper, we study Dung’s...
متن کاملA Dialectical Proof Theory for Universal Acceptance in Coherent Logic-Based Argumentation Frameworks
Given a logic-based argumentation framework built over a knowledge base in a logical language and a query in that language. The query is universally accepted if it is entailed from all extensions. As shown in [2, 14], universal acceptance is different from skeptical acceptance as a query may be entailed from different arguments distributed over all extensions but not necessarily skeptical ones....
متن کامل