Skip to main content

Paraconsistent circumscription

  • Knowledge Representation IV: Reasoning
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1081))

Abstract

In [15], paraconsistent circumscription is described by application of predicate circumscription in a paraconsistent logic, which is nonmonotonic and paraconsistent. In this paper, we first extend paraconsistent circumscription into first-order case by minimal semantics. Unfortunately, the circumscriptive schema is not available for paraconsistent logic. In order to obtain a satisfactory proof theory for paraconsistent circumscription, we then propose a minimal tableaux to arrive at the goal. The sound and complete theorems of the tableaux with respect to the semantics are provided.

Supported in part by Natural Science Foundation, in part by National 863 Project and in part by National Key Project of Fundamental Research Climbing Program of China.

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. Anderson. R and Belnap. N, Entailment, Vol. 1, Princeton, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blair. H and Subrahmanian. V, Paraconsistent Logic Programming, Theoretical Computer Science, 68, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davis. M, The Mathematics of Non-Monotonie Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dunn M, Intuitive Semantics for First-Order Entailments and ‘Coupled Tree', Philosophical Studies, 29, 1976, 149–168

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dunn M, A Sieve for Entailments, J. of Philosophical Logic, 9 (1980), 41–57

    Google Scholar 

  6. Etherington D, Kraus. S and Perlis. D, Nonmonotonicity and the Scope of Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 52 (1991), 221–261

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ginsberg. M (Ed.), Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hanks. S and McDermott. D, Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Temporal Projection, Artificial Intelligence 35 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hintikka. J, Model Minimization — An Alternative to Circumscription, J. of Automated Reasoning, 4, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  10. Levesque. H, A Logic of Implicit and Explicit Belief, Proceedings of AAAI-84, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lifschitz. V, Computing Circumscription, Proceedings of IJCAI-85, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lifschitz. V, The Satisfaction of Circumscription, Artificial Intelligence 28, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lin. F, Reasoning in the Presence of Inconsistency, Proceedings of AAAI-87, 139–143

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lin. Z, Fault-Tolerant Reasoning, Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Expert Systems, January 10–14, Lisbon, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lin. Z, Circumscription in a Paraconsistent Logic, Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Banff, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lin. Z, A Note on Tableaux of Logics of Paradox, Proceedings of German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI-94), Lecture Note in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  17. McCarthy. J, Circumscription — A Form of Non-Monotonie Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  18. McCarthy. J, Application of Circumscription to Formalizing Common-Sense Knowledge, Artificial Intelligence 28, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  19. Morris. P, Stable Closure, Defeasible Logic and Contradiction Tolerant Reasoning, Proceedings of AAAI-88, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  20. Olivetti. N, Tableaux and Sequent Calculus for Minimal Entailment, J. of Automated Reasoning, 9, 1992, 99–139

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pequeno. T and buchsbaum. A, The logic of Epistemic Inconsistency, Proceedings of KR-91, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  22. Perlis. D, On the Consistency of Commonsense Reasoning, Computational Intelligence 2 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Priest. G, Logic of Paradox, J. of Philosophical Logic 8, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  24. Priest. G et al. (Ed.), Paraconsistent Logic: Essays in the Inconsistency, Philosophia Verlag, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  25. Priest. G, Reasoning about Truth, Artificial Intelligence 39, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reiter. R, On Closed World Data Base, in: Logic and Data Base, Gallaire. H and Minker. J (Eds.), Plenum Press, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  27. Roos. N, A Logic for Reasoning with Inconsistent Knowledge, Artificial Intelligence, 57(1992), 69–103

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shoham. Y, Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Meaning and utility, Proceedings of IJCAI'87, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  29. Smullyan. M, First-Order Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1968

    Google Scholar 

  30. Thomason. K and Horty. J, Logics for Inheritance Theory, Proceedings of International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (IWNMR-88), 1988

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Gordon McCalla

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lin, Z. (1996). Paraconsistent circumscription. In: McCalla, G. (eds) Advances in Artifical Intelligence. Canadian AI 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1081. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61291-2_60

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61291-2_60

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61291-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68450-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics