[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Inconsistency and Preservation

  • Conference paper
PRICAI 2000 Topics in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1886))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

One of the main goals of paraconsistent logics is to develop a theory of reasoning that can tolerate inconsistencies. In this paper we present a novel way to analyze and compare several paraconsistent reasoning mechanisms in terms of their preservational properties. The main idea is that although an inconsistent set of data cannot all be true, such a set may nevertheless carry useful properties that are worthy of preservation. One of these properties provides a theoretically interesting way to measure the relative incoherence of a data set; another one provides a way to measure the quantity of empirical information in an inconsistent set.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. Aisbett and G. Gibbon. A practical measure of the information in a logic theory. Journal of Experiment and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 11:201–217, 1999.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. O. Arieli and A. Avron. Reasoning with logical bilattices. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 5:25–63, 1996.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. J. Barwise. The Situation in Logic. CSLI, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. D. Belnap. A useful four-valued logic. In J. M. Dunn and G. Epstein, editors, Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, pages 8–37. D. Reidel Pub., 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang, and H. Prade. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, volume 1, pages 640–645, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising? In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1449–1455, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study, part i: The flat case. Studia Logica, 58(1):17–45, 1997.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. P. Besnard and T. H. Schaub. Circumscribing inconsistency. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, volume 1, pages 150–155, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. H. A. Blair and V. S. Subrahmanian. Paraconsistent logic programming. Theoretical Computer Science, 68(2): 135, 1989.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, and M. Y. Vardi. A nonstandard approach to the logical omniscience problem. Artificial Intelligence, 79:203–240, 1995.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. J. Grant. Classifications for inconsistent theories. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 19(3):435–444, 1978.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. R. E. Jennings, C. W. Chan, and M. J. Dowad. Generalised inference and inference modelling. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2, pages 1046–1051, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Kifer and E. L. Lozinskii. A logic for reasoning with inconsistency. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 9:179–215, 1992.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. E. L. Lozinskii. Resolving contradictions: A plausible semantics for inconsistent systems. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 12:1–31, 1994.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. J. J. Lu and E. Rosenthal. Annotations, signs, and generally paraconsistent logics. In E. A. Yfantis, editor, Intelligent Systems: Third Golden West International Conference, Edited and Selected Papers Volume 1 and 2, pages 143–157. Kluwer Academic Pub., 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G. Priest. Minimally inconsistent LP. Studio. Logica, 50(2):321, 1991.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. N. Rescher and R. Brandom. The Logic of Inconsistency: A Study in Non-Standard Possible World Semantics and Ontology. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  18. N. Rescher and R. Manor. On inference from inconsistent premisses. Theory and Decision, 1:179–217, 1970.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. R. Routley and R. K. Meyer. The semantics of entailment. In H. Leblanc, editor, Truth, Syntax and Modality: Proceedings of the Temple University Conference on Alternative Semantics, pages 199–243. North-Holland Pub., 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. K. Schotch and R. E. Jennings. Inference and necessity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 9:327–340, 1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. P. K. Schotch and R. E. Jennings. On detonating. In G. Priest, R. Routley, and J. Norman, editors, Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent, pages 306–327. Philosophia Verlag, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Wong. Paraconsistent inference and preservation. Workshop on Logic in Computing Science, University of Technology, Sydney, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Automated Reasoning Group Computer Science Laboratory Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University, Australia

    Paul Wong

Authors
  1. Paul Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Osaka University, 8-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047, Japan

    Riichiro Mizoguchi

  2. Computer Sciences Laboratory, Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    John Slaney

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wong, P. (2000). Inconsistency and Preservation. In: Mizoguchi, R., Slaney, J. (eds) PRICAI 2000 Topics in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1886. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44533-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44533-1_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67925-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44533-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation