Similarity-Based Inconsistency-Tolerant Logics

  • Ofer Arieli
  • Anna Zamansky
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6341)


Many logics for AI applications that are defined by denotational semantics are trivialized in the presence of inconsistency. It is therefore often desirable, and practically useful, to refine such logics in a way that inconsistency does not cause the derivation of any formula, and, at the same time, inferences with respect to consistent premises are not affected. In this paper, we introduce a general method of doing so by incorporating preference relations defined in terms of similarities. We exemplify our method for three of the most common denotational semantics (standard many-valued matrices, their non-deterministic generalization, and possible worlds semantics), and demonstrate their usefulness for reasoning with inconsistency.


Aggregation Function Denotational Semantic World Semantic Investment House Strict Partial Order 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arieli, O.: Distance-based paraconsistent logics. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48(3), 766–783 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arieli, O., Denecker, M.: Reducing preferential paraconsistent reasoning to classical entailment. Logic and Computation 13(4), 557–580 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arieli, O., Zamansky, A.: Distance-based non-deterministic semantics for reasoning with uncertainty. Logic Journal of the IGPL 17(4), 325–350 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avron, A., Lev, I.: Non-deterministic multi-valued structures. Logic and Computation 15, 241–261 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avron, A., Zamansky, A.: Non-deterministic semantics for logical systems (A survey). In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    da Costa, N.C.A.: On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 15, 497–510 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitting, M.: Many-valued modal logics. Fundam. Inform. 15(3-4), 235–254 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. In: Proc. KR 2008, pp. 358–366. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleene, S.C.: Introduction to Metamathematics. Van Nostrand (1950)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., Magidor, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44(1-2), 167–207 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCarthy, J.: A basis for a mathematical theory of computation. In: Computer Programming and Formal Systems, pp. 33–70 (1963)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Priest, G.: Reasoning about truth. Artificial Intelligence 39, 231–244 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shoham, Y.: Reasoning about Change. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ofer Arieli
    • 1
  • Anna Zamansky
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe Academic College of Tel-AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Software EngineeringJerusalem College of EngineeringIsrael

Personalised recommendations