Only persistence makes nonmonotonicity monotonous
An important characteristic of many logics for artificial intelligence is that they are nonmonotonic. This means that adding a formula to the premises can destroy some of the consequences. There may exist formulae that can always be safely added to the premises without destroying any of the consequences: they respect monotonicity. We consider three preferential logics for which we analyze the class of formulae which respect monotonicity. For each of the three logics we show that this class is equal to the class of formulae preserved under going to more preferred models, and we provide syntactic characterizations of these classes.
Keywordsnonmonotonic reasoning monotonicity preferential logics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [Be89]J.F.A.K. van Benthem, “Semantic parallels in natural language and computation”, in: H.D. Ebbinghaus et al. (eds.), Logic Colloquium, Granada 1987, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 331–375Google Scholar
- [CK73]C.C. Chang, H.J. Keisler, Model Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973Google Scholar
- [En95]J. Engelfriet, “Minimal Temporal Epistemic Logic”, Technical Report IR-388, Free University Amsterdam, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, 1995. To appear in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic.Google Scholar
- [Et88]D.W. Etherington, Reasoning with Incomplete Information, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., Los Altos, California, 1988Google Scholar
- [ET93]J. Engelfriet, J. Treur, “A temporal model theory for default logic”, in: M. Clarke, R. Kruse, S. Moral (eds.), Proc. 2nd European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, ECSQARU '93, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 747, Springer Verlag, 1993, pp. 91–96Google Scholar
- [ET94]J. Engelfriet, J. Treur, “Temporal theories of reasoning”, in: C. MacNish, D. Pearce, L.M. Pereira (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA '94, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 838, Springer Verlag, 1994, pp. 279–299. Also in: Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 5 (2), 1995, pp. 239–261Google Scholar
- [ET96]J. Engelfriet, J. Treur, “Specification of nonmonotonic reasoning”, in: D.M. Gabbay, H.J. Ohlbach (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, FAPR'96, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1085, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 111–125Google Scholar
- [HM84]J.Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, “Towards a theory of knowledge and ignorance”, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, AAAI, 1984, pp. 125–143Google Scholar
- [Mc77]J. McCarthy, “Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence”, in: Proceedings Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1977, pp. 1038–1044Google Scholar
- [MH95]J.-J. Ch. Meyer, W. van der Hoek, Epistemic Logic for Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 41, Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
- [Sh87]Y. Shoham, “A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics”, in: Proceedings 10th IJCAI, 1987, pp. 388–392Google Scholar
- [Sh88]Y. Shoham, Reasoning about Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988Google Scholar