Introduction to Labelled Deductive Systems

  • Dov M. Gabbay
Chapter
Part of the Handbook of Philosophical Logic book series (HALO, volume 17)

Abstract

In the past 40 years logic has undergone a serious evolutionary development. The meteoric rise of the applied areas of computer science and artificial intelligence put pressure on traditional logic to evolve. There was the urgent need to develop new logics in order to provide better models of human behaviour and actions. Such models are used to help design products which aid/replace the human in his daily activity. As a result, a rich variety of new logics have been developed and there was the need for a new unifying methodology for the chaotic landscape of the new logics.

Keywords

Modal Logic Classical Logic Belief Revision Logical System Intuitionistic Logic 
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.

References

  1. Allen, C. 2001. A practical guide to evidence, 2nd edn. London: Cavendish Pub.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, A.R., and N.D. Belnap. 1975. Entailment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barringer, H., M. Fisher, D. Gabbay, R. Owens, and M. Reynolds. 1994. The imperative future. Chichester: Research Studies Press.Google Scholar
  4. Basin, D., M. D’Agostino, D. M. Gabbay, S. Matthews, and L.K. Vigano, eds. 2000. Labelled deduction. Norwell: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. Carnielli, W., M. Coniglio, D. Gabbay, P. Gouveia, and C. Sernadas. 2007. Analysis and synthesis of logics. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Crochemore, M., and D. Gabbay. 2011. Reactive automata. Information and Computation. DOI: 10.01.16.j.ic.2011.01.002, pp. 692–704.Google Scholar
  7. Cross, Sir Rupert. 1999. Sir Rupert Cross on evidence. Butterworth: Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  8. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Felscher, W. 1985. Dialogues as a foundation for intuitionistic logic. In Handbook of philosophical logic, vol 3, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Also in Volume 5 of the second edition, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. Fitting, M. 1983. Proof methods for modal and intuitionistic logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabbay, D.M. 1981. Semantical investigations in Heyting’s intutionistic logic. Dordrecht: D Reidel.Google Scholar
  12. Gabbay, D.M. 1985. Theoretical foundations for non monotonic reasoning. In Expert systems, logics and models of concurrent systems, ed. K. Apt, 439–459. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gabbay, D.M. 1991a. Abduction in labelled deductive systems, a conceptual abstract. In ECSQAU 91, ed. R. Kruse and P. Siegel, 3–12. LNCS 548. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Gabbay, D.M. 1991b. Theoretical foundations for non monotonic reasoning. Part 2: Structured non-monotonic theories. In SCAI ’91, Proceedings of the Third Scandanavian Conference on AI, pp. 19–40. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gabbay, D.M. 1991c. Modal and temporal logic programming II. In Logic programming—Expanding the horizon, ed. T. Dodd, R.P. Owens, S. Torrance, 82–123. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
  16. Gabbay, D.M. 1992a. Theory of algorithmic proof. In Handbook of logic in theoretical computer science, Vol. 1, ed. S. Abramsky, D.M. Gabbay, and T.S.E. Maibaum, 307–408. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gabbay, D.M. 1992b. How to construct a logic for your application. In Proceedings of the 16th German AI Conference, GWAI 92, pp. 1–30. LNAI 671. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Gabbay, D.M. 1992c. Modal and temporal logic programming III, Metalevel features in the object language. In Non-classical logic programming, ed. L.F. del Cerro and M. Penttonen, 85–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gabbay, D.M. 1993a. Labelled deductive systems and situation theory. In Situation theory and applications, Vol 3, ed. P. Aczel, D. Israel, Y. Katagin, and S. Peters, 89–118. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  20. Gabbay, D.M. 1993b. A general theory of structured consequence relations. In Substructural logics, ed. P. Schröder-Heister and K. Dosen, 109–151. Studies in Logic and Computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gabbay, D.M. 1996. Labelled deductive systems, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gabbay, D.M. 1998. Fibring logics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gabbay, D.M. 1999. Compromise revision, a position paper. In Dynamic worlds, ed. B. Fronhofer and R. Pareschi, 111–148. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gabbay, D.M. 2001. Dynamics of practical reasoning: A position paper. In Advances in modal logic 2, ed. K. Segerberg, M. Zakhryaschev, M. de Rijke, and H. Wansing, 197—242. Stanford: CSLI Publications, CUP.Google Scholar
  25. Gabbay, D.M. 2008a. Reactive Kripke models and contrary-to-duty obligations. In DEON-2008, Deontic logic in computer science, ed. Ron van der Meyden and Leendert van der Torre, 155–173. LNAI 5076. Springer: Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  26. Gabbay, D.M. 2008b. Reactive Kripke semantics and arc accessibility. In Pillars of computer science: essays dedicated to Boris (Boaz) Trakhtenbrot on the occasion of his 85th birthday, ed. Arnon Avron, Nachum Dershowitz, and Alexander Rabinovich, 292–341. LNCS 4800. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Earlier version published in Proceeding of CombLog04 (http://www.cs.math.ist.utl.pt/comblog04/), ed. W. Carnielli, F.M. Dionesio, and P. Mateus, 7–20. Centre of Logic and Computation University of Lisbon, 2004, ftp://logica.cle.unicamp.br/pub/e-prints/comblog04/gabbay.pdf. Also published as a book report, by CLC (Centre for Logic and Computation), Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon l, 2004, ISBN 972-99289-0-8.
  27. Gabbay, D. 2009. Fibring argumentation frames. Studia logica 93(2–3):231–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gabbay, D. 2010. Sampling logic and argumentation. Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research 28(2):233–255. Special issue: Logic and Philosophy Today, ed. Amitabha Gupta and Johan van Benthem.Google Scholar
  29. Gabbay, D.M. 2011. Dung’s argumentation is equivalent to classical propositional logic with the Peirce-Quine dagger. Logica universalis 5(2):255–318. DOI: 10.1007/s11787-011-0036-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gabbay, D.M. 2012. Equational approach to argumentation networks. Argumentation and Computation 3(2–3):87–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gabbay, D.M. 2011c. Introducing equational semantics for argumentation networks. In Proceedings of the ECSQARU 2011, ed. W. Liu. LNAI 6717, 19–35. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Gabbay, D., and A. d’Avila Garcez. 2004. Fibring neural networks. In Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAA’04), San Jose, CA, 342–347. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gabbay, D.M., and A. Hunter. 1991. Making inconsistency respectable. Part 1: A logical framework for inconsistency in reasoning. In Fundamentals of AI research, LNCS 535. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Gabbay, D.M., and A. Hunter. 1993. Making inconsistency respectable. Part 2. Meta-level handling of inconsistency. In LNCS 747, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Gabbay, D., and N. Olivetti. 2000. Goal directed proof theory. Norwell: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gabbay, D.M., and R.J.G.B. Queiroz. 1992. Extending the Curry-Howard interpretation to linear, relevance and other resource logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 57:1319–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gabbay, D., and J. Williamson. 2004. Recursive causality in Bayesian networks and self fibring. In Laws and models of science, ed. D. Gillies, 173–247. College Publications: London.Google Scholar
  38. Gabbay, D., and J. Woods. 2003. The laws of evidence and labelled deduction. In Phi-news, pp. 5–46, October 2003, http://phinews.ruc.dk/phinews4.pdf. Updated version in Gabbay, D.M., P. Canivez, S. Rahman, and A. Thiercelin, eds. Approaches to legal rationality, logic, epistemology, and the unity of science 20, 1st edn, 295–331. Springer: Heidelberg. DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-9588-6_15.
  39. Gabbay, D.M., and J. Woods. 2003/2005. A practical logic of cognitive systems. A multi-volume series with Elsevier, including Agenda relevance, 508pp, 2003 and The reach of abduction, 2005.Google Scholar
  40. Gabbay, D., O. Rodrigues, and A. Russo. 2010. Revision acceptability and context. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gärdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in flux. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Second edition, College Publications, 2008.Google Scholar
  42. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  43. Jeffrey, R. 1983. The logic of decision, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Keane, A. 2000. The modern law of evidence. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  45. Lambert, K., and W. Ulrich. 1980. The nature of argument. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Makinson, D. 1994. General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning. In Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, Vol. 3, ed. D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, and J.A. Robinson, 35–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Makinson, D., and L. van der Torre. 2001. Constraints for input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30:155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Metcalfe, G., N. Olivetti, and D. Gabbay. 2008. Proof theory for fuzzy logics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Ng, R., and V. Subrahmanian. 1994. Dempster–Shafer logic programs and stable semantics. In Logical methods, ed. J.N. Crossley and J. Be Remmel, 654–704. Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  50. Nute, D. 1994. Defeasible logic. Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, Vol. 3, ed. D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, J.A. Robinson, 353–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. de Queiroz, R., A. G. de Oliveira, and D. Gabbay. 2011. The Functional Interpretation of Logical Deduction. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  52. Reiter, R. 2002. Knowledge in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. RCCJ. 1993. Report of the Royal Commission of Criminal Justice, M2263, Ch 8, para 26. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  54. Scott, D. 1974. Completeness and axiomatizability in many valued logics. In Proceedings of Tarski Symposium, pp. 411–436. Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  55. Tarski, A. 1936. On the concept of logical consequence (in Polish). Translation in Logic semantics metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  56. Uglow, S. 1997. Textbook on evidence. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  57. Vermeir, D., E. Laenens. 1990. An overview of ordered logic in Abstracts of the third logical biennial, Varga, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  58. Vigano, L. 1999. Labelled non-classical logics. Kluwer. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  59. Walton, D. 1990. Practical reasoning. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  60. Woods, J. 1988. Are fallacies theoretical entities. Informal Logic 10:67–76.Google Scholar
  61. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1989. Fallacies selected papers 1972–1982, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dov M. Gabbay
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Bar Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  2. 2.King’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of LuxembourgWalferdangeLuxembourg
  4. 4.University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations