A Theory of Hierarchical Consequence and Conditionals

Article

Abstract

We introduce \({\mathcal{A}}\) -ranked preferential structures and combine them with an accessibility relation. \({\mathcal{A}}\) -ranked preferential structures are intermediate between simple preferential structures and ranked structures. The additional accessibility relation allows us to consider only parts of the overall \({\mathcal{A}}\) -ranked structure. This framework allows us to formalize contrary to duty obligations, and other pictures where we have a hierarchy of situations, and maybe not all are accessible to all possible worlds. Representation results are proved.

Keywords

Deontic logic Contrary-to-duties Preferential structures Ranked structures Nonmonotonic logic Representation results 

References

  1. Alchourron C., Gardenfors P., Makinson D. (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bossu G., Siegel P. (1985) Saturation, nonmonotonic reasoning and the closed-world assumption. Artificial Intelligence 25: 13–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gabbay D.M. (1985) Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems. In: Apt K.R. (eds) Logics and models of concurrent systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 439–457Google Scholar
  4. Gabbay, D. M. (2008a). Reactive Kripke models and contrary to duty obligations. In R. v. d. Meyden & L. v. d. Torre (Eds.), DEON-2008, Deontic logic in computer science, LNAI 5076 (pp. 155–173). Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Gabbay, D. M. (2008b). Reactive Kripke models and contrary to duty obligations. Journal of applied logic, special issue on Deon-2008 (to appear).Google Scholar
  6. Gabbay D., Schlechta K. (2009a) Roadmap for preferential logics. Journal of applied nonclassical logics 19/1: 43–95 hal-00311941, arXiv 0808.3073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gabbay, D., & Schlechta, K. (2009b). Logical tools for handling change in agent-based systems. hal-00336103, arXiv 0811.0074, Hermes, Cachan, France: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Hansson, B. (1971). An analysis of some deontic logics. Nous 3 (pp. 373–398). Reprinted In R. Hilpinen (Ed.) Deontic logic: Introductory and systematic readings (pp. 121–147). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Kraus S., Lehmann D., Magidor M. (1990) Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44(1–2): 167–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lehmann D., Magidor M. (1992) What does a conditional knowledge base entail?. Artificial Intelligence 55(1): 1–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lehmann D., Magidor M., Schlechta K. (2001) Distance semantics for belief revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(1): 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schlechta K. (1992) Some results on classical preferential models. Journal of Logic and Computation, Oxford 2(6): 675–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schlechta K. (1996) Some completeness results for stoppered and ranked classical preferential models. Journal of Logic and Computation Oxford 6(4): 599–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schlechta K. (2004) Coherent Systems. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael
  3. 3.Laboratoire d’Informatique Fondamentale de Marseille, UMR 6166CNRS and Université de ProvenceMarseille Cedex 13France

Personalised recommendations