Abstract
We extend the classic propositional tableau method in order to compute the models given by the semantics of the Priest’s paraconsistent logic of paradox. Without loss of generality, we assume that the knowledge base is represented through propositional statements in NNF, which leads to use only two rules from the classical propositional tableau calculus for computing the paraconsistent models. We consider multisets to represent branches of the tableau tree and we extend the classical closed branches in order to compute the paradoxical models of formulas of the knowledge base. A sound and complete algorithm is provided.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Strictly speaking, the method does not exactly provide a model considering that some symbols of the language may not get a truth value, however, the symbols that get a truth value are sufficient to satisfy the input formulas.
References
Avron, A., Konikowska, B., Zamansky, A.: Cut-free sequent calculi for C-systems with generalized finite-valued semantics. J. Log. Comput. 23(3), 517–540 (2013)
Ben-Ari, M.: Propositional logic: formulas, models, tableaux. In: Ben-Ari, M. (ed.) Mathematical Logic for Computer Science, pp. 7–47. Springer, London (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4129-7_2
Bloesch, A.: A tableau style proof system for two paraconsistent logics. Notre Dame J. Form. Logic. 34(2), 295–301 (1993)
Carnieli, W.A., Marcos, J.: Tableau systems for logics of formal inconsistency. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IC-AI 2001), vol. 2, pp. 848–852. CSREA Press (2001)
Cholvy, L., Perrussel, L., Thevenin, J.M.: Using inconsistency measures for estimating reliability. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 89, 41–57 (2017)
D’Agostino, M.: Tableau methods for classical propositional logic. In: D’Agostino, M., Gabbay, D.M., Hähnle, R., Posegga, J. (eds.) Handbook of Tableau Methods, pp. 45–123. Springer, Dordrecht (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1754-0_2
Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J. Intell. Inf. Systems. 27, 159–184 (2006)
Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring consistency gain and information loss in stepwise inconsistency resolution. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6717, pp. 362–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_31
Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Approaches to measuring inconsistent information. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 191–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30597-2_7
Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: shapley inconsistency values. Artif. Intell. 174(14), 1007–1026 (2010)
Kleene, S.C.: Introduction to Metamathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1952)
Lin, Z., Li, W.: A note on tableaux of logic of paradox. In: Nebel, B., Dreschler-Fischer, L. (eds.) KI 1994. LNCS, vol. 861, pp. 296–307. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58467-6_26
Oller, C.: Measuring coherence using LP-models. J. Appl. Logic. 2(4), 451–455 (2004)
Priest, G.: Logic of paradox. J. Philos. Logic. 8(1), 219–241 (1979)
Priest, G.: Minimally inconsistent LP. Stud. Logica. 50(2), 321–331 (1991)
Smullyan, M.: First-Order Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1968). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-86718-7
Thimm, M.: On the expressivity of inconsistency measures. Artif. Intell. 234(C), 120–151 (2016)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pozos-Parra, P., Perrussel, L., Thévenin, J.M. (2018). On Enumerating Models for the Logic of Paradox Using Tableau. In: Ciucci, D., Pasi, G., Vantaggi, B. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11142. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00461-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00461-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00460-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00461-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)