Advertisement

Para-Disagreement Logics and Their Implementation Through Embedding in Coq and SMT

  • Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo
Chapter
Part of the Trends in Logic book series (TREN, volume 47)

Abstract

On closer inspection many apparent contradictions turn out to be mere disagreements between distinct sources of information. For example, if a source \(s_1\) says P and a source \(s_2\) says \(\lnot P\), their disagreement would only become an actual contradiction if we naively merged what they say into our own knowledge base.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The impeachment example used throughout this paper is inspired by a similar example presented by Viktor Wang in the ANU-Unicamp Paraconsistency Workshop. Der Author ist Stipendiat der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (APART).

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (2): 510–530.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2274239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Areces, C., and P. Blackburn. 2010. Special issue on hybrid logics. Journal of Applied Logic 8(4): 303–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2010.001.
  3. 3.
    Arieli, O. 2008. Distance-based paraconsistent logics. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48(3): 766–783.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2007.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrett, C., L.M. de Moura, S. Ranise, A. Stump, and C. Tinelli. 2010. The SMT-LIB initiative and the rise of SMT - (HVC 2010 award talk). In: S. Barner, I.G. Harris, D. Kroening, O. Raz (eds.) Hardware and Software: Verification and Testing - 6th International Haifa Verification Conference, HVC 2010, Haifa, Israel, October 4-7, 2010. Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6504, p. 3. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19583-9_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benzmüller, C., and B. Woltzenlogel Paleo. 2013. Gödel’s god in isabelle/hol. Archive of Formal Proofs 2013. http://afp.sourceforge.net/entries/GoedelGod.shtml.
  6. 6.
    Benzmüller, C., and B. Woltzenlogel Paleo. 2014. Automating Gödel’s ontological proof of god’s existence with higher-order automated theorem provers. In ECAI 2014 - 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 18-22 August 2014, Prague, Czech Republic - Including Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems (PAIS 2014), ed. by T. Schaub, G. Friedrich, B. O’Sullivan Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263, pp. 93–98. IOS Press.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-419-0-93.
  7. 7.
    Benzmüller, C., B. Woltzenlogel Paleo. 2014. On logic embeddings and Gödel’s god. In Recent Trends in Algebraic Development Techniques, Theoretical Computer Science and General Issues, ed. by M. Codescu, R. Diaconescu, I. uu, vol. 9463. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28114-8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benzmüller, C., and B. Woltzenlogel Paleo. 2015. Higher-order modal logics: Automation and applications. In Reasoning Web. Web Logic Rules - 11th International Summer School 2015, Berlin, Germany, July 31 - August 4, 2015, Tutorial Lectures, ed. by W. Faber, A. Paschke, LNCS, vol. 9203, pp. 32–74. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21768-0_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benzmüller, C., and B. Woltzenlogel Paleo. 2015. Interacting with modal logics in the Coq proof assistant. In Computer Science - Theory and Applications - 10th International Computer Science Symposium in Russia, CSR 2015, Listvyanka, Russia, July 13–17, 2015, Proceedings, pp. 398–411.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20297-6_25.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bertossi, L.E. 2011. Database Repairing and Consistent Query Answering. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.  https://doi.org/10.2200/S00379ED1V01Y201108DTM020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bertot, Y., and P. Casteran. 2004. Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blackburn, P., M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema. 2001. Modal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carnielli, W., M.E. Coniglio, and J. Marcos. 2007. Logics of Formal Inconsistency, pp. 1–93. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6324-4_1.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chomicki, J. 2008. Consistent query answering: The first ten years. In Scalable Uncertainty Management, Second International Conference, SUM 2008, Naples, Italy, October 1-3, 2008. Proceedings, ed. by S. Greco, T. Lukasiewicz, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5291, pp. 1–3. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87993-0_1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claessen, K., and D. Rosén. 2015. SAT modulo intuitionistic implications. In Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning - 20th International Conference, LPAR-20 2015, Suva, Fiji, November 24-28, 2015, Proceedings, ed. by M. Davis, A. Fehnker, A. McIver, A. Voronkov, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9450, pp. 622–637. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48899-7_43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    da Costa, N.C.A., and F.A. Doria. 1995. On jaskowski’s discussive logic. Studia Logica 54(1): 33–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01058531.
  17. 17.
    de Moura, L.M., and N. Bjørner. 2008. Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 14th International Conference, TACAS 2008, Held as Part of the Joint European Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2008, Budapest, Hungary, March 29-April 6, 2008. Proceedings, ed. by C.R. Ramakrishnan, J. Rehof, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lenzerini, M. 2002. Data integration: A theoretical perspective. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, June 3-5, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, ed. by L. Popa, S. Abiteboul, P.G. Kolaitis, pp. 233–246. ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/543613.543644.
  19. 19.
    Marcos, J. 2005. Modality and paraconsistency. The Logica Yearbook 2004: 213–222.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paulin-Mohring, C. 2015. Introduction to the calculus of inductive constructions. In All about Proofs, Proofs for All, Mathematical Logic and Foundations, ed. by D. Delahaye, B. Woltzenlogel Paleo. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Staworko, S., J. Chomicki, and J. Marcinkowski. 2012. Prioritized repairing and consistent query answering in relational databases. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 64(2–3): 209–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-012-9288-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zohar, Y., and A. Zamansky. 2016. Gen2sat: An automated tool for deciding derivability in analytic pure sequent calculi. In Automated Reasoning - 8th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2016, Coimbra, Portugal, June 27 - July 2, 2016, Proceedings, ed. by N. Olivetti, A. Tiwari, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9706, pp. 487–495. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40229-1_33.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zwicker, W.S. 2016. Introduction to the theory of voting. In Handbook of Computational Social Choice, ed. by F. Brandt, V. Conitzer, U. Endriss, J. Lang, A.D. Procaccia, pp. 23–56. Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107446984.003.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations