Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence

SBIA 1996: Advances in Artificial Intelligence pp 11–20Cite as

Well-behaved IDL theories

  • Nonmonotonic Reasoning
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1159))

Abstract

The field of nonmonotonic logic, sixteen years old now, is devoted to solve the problem of reasoning under incomplete knowledge, whose good understanding is essential to the construction of AI as a science and whose relevance reaches far beyond AI applications. During these years, many insights have been accumulated in the form of desirable properties the proposed formalisms should exhibit and of criticisms on the available solutions. This paper takes advantage on this experience to derive from them a sort of canon to be imposed to nonmonotonic formalisms. This canon is translated as a set of etiquette rules guiding knowledge representation into theories framed within the Inconsistent Default Logic, IDL. It is then established the important result that IDL produces a unique extension for a theory constructed according to these rules. This result calls forth IDL as an interesting alternative to credulous common sense reasoning formalization fulfilling many desired properties.

research partially sponsored by PICD/CAPES and CNPq.

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brewka, G. ‘Cumulative Default Logic: in defense of nonmonotonic inference rules'. Artificial Intelligence, 50(2):183–205, July, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. da Costa, N.C.A. ‘On the Theory of Inconsistent Formal Systems.’ Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15. 1974. pp.497–510.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Delgrande, J.P. & Jackson, W.K. ‘Default Logic revisited'. In: Proc. of the 2nd KR'91, J.A. Allen, R.Fikes and E.Sandewall, editors, pp.118–27. San Mateo, CA, Apr. 1991. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  4. Etherington, D.W. ‘Formalizing Nonmonotonic Reasoning Systems'. Artificial Intelligence, 31:41–85, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hanks, S. & McDermott, D. ‘Nonmonotonic Logic and Temporal Projection.’ Artificial Intelligence, 33:27–39, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lukaszewicz, W. ‘Considerations on default logic — an alternative approach'. Computational Intelligence, 4:1–16, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Martins, A.T.C. & Pequeno, T. ‘A Meta Axiomatics for the Inconsistent Default Logic'. Journal of the IGPL. Oxford University Press. Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Martins, A.T.C. 'sequent Calculi for the Logic of Epistemic Inconsistency and for the Inconsistent Default Logic'. Qualification Exam. DI-UFPE. To be submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McCarthy, J. ‘Circumscription — a form of nonmonotonic reasoning'. Artificial Intelligence, 28:89–116, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pequeno, M. ‘Defeasible Logic with Exception First'. PhD Thesis, Imperial College, London. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pequeno, T.H.C. ‘A Logic for Inconsistent Nonmonotonic Reasoning.’ Technical Report 90/6. Department of Computing, Imperial College. London. 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pequeno, T.H.C. & Buchsbaum, A.R. ‘The Logic of Epistemic Inconsistency'. In: Proc. of the 2nd KR'91. J.A. Allen, R.Fikes and E.Sandewall, editors, pp 453–60. San Mateo, CA, Apr. 1991. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pollock, J.L. ‘Defeasible Reasoning'. Cognitive Science, 11:481–518, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Reiter, R. ‘A Logic of Default Reasoning.’ Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schaub, T. ‘Assertional Default Theories: a semantical view'. In: Proc. of the 2nd KR'91, J.A.Allen, R.Fikes and E.Sandewall, editors, pp. 496–506, San Mateo, CA, Apr. 1991. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zaverucha, G. ‘A Prioritized Contextual Default Logic: Curing Anomalous Extensions with a Simple Abnormality Default Theory'. In: Proc. KI-94, Nebel and Dreschler-Fischer, eds, Saarbrucken, LNAI 861 (Springer 1994) 260–271.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratório de Inteligência Artificial Departamento de Computação, Universidade Federal do Ceará, P.O.Box 12166, 60455-760, Fortaleza CE, Brasil

    Ana Teresa C. Martins (PhD student), Marcelino Pequeno & Tarcísio Pequeno

  2. Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil

    Ana Teresa C. Martins (PhD student)

Authors
  1. Ana Teresa C. Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelino Pequeno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tarcísio Pequeno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Díbio L. Borges Celso A. A. Kaestner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Martins, A.T.C., Pequeno, M., Pequeno, T. (1996). Well-behaved IDL theories. In: Borges, D.L., Kaestner, C.A.A. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence. SBIA 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1159. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61859-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61859-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61859-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70742-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation