Advertisement

Logics for inheritance theory

  • Richmond H. Thomason
  • John F. Horty
Applications
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 346)

Keywords

Atomic Formula Logical Theory Computer Science Department Default Rule Default Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    N. Belnap. “A useful four-valued logic.” In J. Dunn and G. Epstein (eds.), Modern uses of multiple-valued logic, D. Reidel, 1977, pp. 8–37.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Delgrande, “An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic: revised report.” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36 (1988), pp. 63–90.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Doyle. Some theories of Reasoned Assumptions. Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1983. Technical Report No. CMU-CS-83-125.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. Etherington and R. Reiter, “On inheritance hierarchies with exceptions.” In Proceedings of AAAI-83, Morgan Kaufmann (1983), pp. 104–108.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Etherington, “Formalizing nonmonotonic reasoning systems.” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 31 (1987), pp. 41–85.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Etherington, Reasoning with Incomplete Information. Morgan Kaufmann (1988), viii+240 pp.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. Geffner and J. Pearl, “A framework for reasoning with defaults.” Technical Report R-94-III, Computer Science Department, University of California at Los Angeles (1988), 17 pp.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Gelfond and H. Przymusinska, “Inheritance hierarchies and autoepistemic logic.” Forthcoming Technical Report, Computer Science Department, University of Texas at El Paso.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Haugh, “Tractable theories of multiple defeasible inheritance in ordinary nonmonotonic logics.” In Proceedings of AAAI-88, Morgan Kaufmann (1988), pp. 421–426.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Horty, R. Thomason, and D. Touretzky, “A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic nets.” Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1987. Technical Report No. CMU-CS-87-175. Forthcoming in Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Horty, R. Thomason, and D. Touretzky, “A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic nets.” In AAAI-87 (Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence). Volume 2, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1987, pp. 358–363.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Horty, “Nonmonotonic inheritance and nonmonotonic logic.” Forthcoming Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Horty, “Credible extensions of defeasible theories.” Forthcoming Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    K. Konologe, “Hierarchic autoepistemic theories for nonmonotonic reasoning.” In Proceedings of AAAI-88, Morgan Kaufmann (1988), pp. 439–443.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    V. Lifschitz, “Some results on circumscription.” Proceedings of the non-monotonic reasoning workshop, New Paltz, NY. AAAI (1984), pp. 151–164.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    V. Lifshitz, “Circumscriptive theories: a logic-based framework for knowledge representation.” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 17 (1989), forthcoming.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R. Loui, “Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference.” Computational Intelligence, vol. 3 (1987), pp. 100–106.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    P. Morris, “The anomalous extension problem in default reasoning.” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35 (1988), pp. 383–399.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Poole, “On the comparison of theories: preferring the most specific explanation.” In Proceedings of IJCAI-85, Morgan Kaufmann (1985), pp. 144–147.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. Thomason, J. Horty, and D. Touretzky, “A calculus for inheritance in monotonic semantic nets.” Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1986. Technical Report No. CMU-CS-86-138.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R. Thomason, J. Horty, and D. Touretzky, “A calculus for inheritance in monotonic semantic nets.” In Z. Ras and M. Zemankova (eds.), Methodologies for intelligent Systems (Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 280–287.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. Thomason and J. Aronis, “Hybridizing nonmonotonic inheritance with theorem proving.” Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    D. Touretzky, Implicit ordering of defaults in inheritance systems. In Proceedings of AAAI-84, Morgan Kaufmann (1984), pp. 322–325.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D. Touretzky, The mathematics of inheritance systems. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    D. Touretzky, J. Horty, and R. Thomason, “A clash of intuitions: the current state of non-monotonic multiple inheritance systems.” In Proceedings of IJCAI-87, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1987, pp. 476–482.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richmond H. Thomason
    • 1
  • John F. Horty
    • 2
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems ProgramUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations