Allowed Arguments
نویسنده
چکیده
Starling with a first-order modal conditional logic which allows unlimited nesting of defaults and emheddings into any context analyzable in possibleworlds theory I introduce two simple notions of default reasoning the syntactic notion of (pnorniied) Allowed Consequence and the semantic notion of (prioritized) Allowed Entailment I prove that the one is sound and complete relative to the other
منابع مشابه
Input/Output Dependencies of Normal Logic Programs
SLDNF-resolution is complete for allowed programs and allowed queries. But the condition of allowedness is very stringent and excludes many common Prolog constructs. We show that allowedness is a special case of a more general principle. We show that if the clauses of a normal program are correct with respect to an input/output specification then SLDNFresolution is complete for it. An input/out...
متن کاملبازخوانی روایات توریه و حکم آن
Some narrations are assumed to apply Toriya to avoid absolute lies. They also attribute the use of half-truth to the prophets. However, analysis of content and document of mentioned narrations, along with analyzing relevant verses in the Qurān and defining an acceptable criterion to distinguish truths from lies, show that half-truth is false. Regarding religious beliefs, it is considered to be ...
متن کاملRévision de systèmes d’argumentation : changement minimal du statut des arguments
In this paper, we investigate the revision issue for argumentation systems à la Dung. We focus on revision as minimal change of the arguments status. Contrarily to most of the previous works on the topic, the addition of new arguments is not allowed in the revision process, so that the revised system has to be obtained by modifying the attack relation, only. We introduce a language of revision ...
متن کاملPrecedent and Procedure: an argumentation-theoretic analysis
Recent research on arguments treats them as entirely abstract, only related by an attack relation, which always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values. However, this does not explain how an audience can prefer or value an argument, yet...
متن کاملModelling Judicial Context in Argumentation Frameworks
Much work using argumentation frameworks treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation which always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and which filter the attack relation, so that, depend...
متن کامل