Reasoning About Exceptions (Extended Abstract)
نویسندگان
چکیده
In this paper we analyze the conditional logic approach to default logic, the logic that formalizes reasoning about default assumptions.Conditional logic is a popular framework to formalize defeasible reasoning. The conditional sentence “if (the antecedent or condition) then by default (the consequent or conclusion)” is represented in this framework by the formula > , where ‘>’ is some kind of implication of conditional logic. In this paper different usages of preference orderings for defeasible conditional logics are discussed. The different usages, so-called minimizing and ordering, are represented by different modal operators. Each operator validates different inference rules. Hence, the combination of different modal operators imposes restrictions on the proof theory of the logic. The restriction discussed in this paper is that a proof rule can be blocked in a derivation due to the fact that another proof rule has already been used earlier in the derivation. We call this the two-phase approach in the proof theory.
منابع مشابه
Reasoning about exceptions in ontologies: a skeptical preferential approach (Extended Abstract)
متن کامل
Reasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملReasoning About Exceptions?
In this paper we propose an exception logic – formalizing reasoning about exceptions. We use this logic to defend two claims. First, we argue that default logic – formalizing reasoning about default assumptions – is an extension of exception logic. A deconstruction argument shows that reasoning about exceptions is one of the first principles of reasoning about default assumptions. Second, we ar...
متن کاملHypothetical Reasoning with Well Founded Semantics
Well Founded Semantics is shown adequate to capture hypothetical reasoning if we interpret the Well Founded model of a program P as a (possibly incomplete) view of the world. Thus the Well Founded model may be accepted as a partially definite view of the world, and the other extended stable models as alternative extended consistent views of the world. The original contributions of this paper ar...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1997