Skip to main content

Logics for Rough Concept Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic and Its Applications (ICLA 2019)

Abstract

Taking an algebraic perspective on the basic structures of Rough Concept Analysis as the starting point, in this paper we introduce some varieties of lattices expanded with normal modal operators which can be regarded as the natural rough algebra counterparts of certain subclasses of rough formal contexts, and introduce proper display calculi for the logics associated with these varieties which are sound, complete, conservative and with uniform cut elimination and subformula property. These calculi modularly extend the multi-type calculi for rough algebras to a ‘nondistributive’ (i.e. general lattice-based) setting.

The research of the fourth author is supported by the NWO Vidi grant 016.138.314, the NWO Aspasia grant 015.008.054, and a Delft Technology Fellowship awarded in 2013.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    In [22], sequent calculi for non-distributive versions of the logics associated with varieties of ‘rough algebras’ are introduced, which are sound and complete but without cut elimination.

  2. 2.

    When \(B=\{a\}\) (resp. \(Y=\{x\}\)) we write \(a^{\uparrow \downarrow }\) for \(\{a\}^{\uparrow \downarrow }\) (resp. \(x^{\downarrow \uparrow }\) for \(\{x\}^{\downarrow \uparrow }\)).

  3. 3.

    The assumption that E is I-compatible does not follow from R and S being I-compatible. Let \(\mathbb {G} = (\mathbb {P}, Id_A)\) for any polarity \(\mathbb {P}\) such that not all singleton sets of objects are Galois-stable. Hence \(E = Id_A\) is not I-compatible. However, if \(E = Id_A\), then \(R = S = I\) are I-compatible.

  4. 4.

    Condition H3 implies that \(\blacksquare _I\,: \mathbb {L}\twoheadrightarrow \mathsf {S}_{\mathsf{I}}\) and \(\Box _I\,: \mathsf {L}_{\mathsf{I}} \hookrightarrow \mathbb {L}\) are \(\wedge \)-hemimorphisms and and \(\Diamond _C\,: \mathsf {L_C} \hookrightarrow \mathbb {L}\) are \(\vee \)-hemimorphisms; condition H4 implies that the black connectives are surjective and the white ones are injective.

  5. 5.

    The connectives which appear in a grey cell in the synoptic tables will only be included in the present language at the structural level.

References

  1. Banerjee, M., Chakraborty, M.K.: Rough sets through algebraic logic. Fundamenta Informaticae 28(3, 4), 211–221 (1996)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Conradie, W., Frittella, S., Palmigiano, A., Piazzai, M., Tzimoulis, A., Wijnberg, N.M.: Categories: how I learned to stop worrying and love two sorts. In: Väänänen, J., Hirvonen, Å., de Queiroz, R. (eds.) WoLLIC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9803, pp. 145–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52921-8_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Conradie, W., Frittella, S., Palmigiano, A., Piazzai, M., Tzimoulis, A., Wijnberg, N.M.: Toward an epistemic-logical theory of categorization. In: Proceedings of the TARK 2017. EPTCS, vol. 251, pp. 167–186 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Conradie, W., Palmigiano, A.: Algorithmic correspondence and canonicity for non-distributive logics. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic ArXiv:1603.08515

  5. Frittella, S., Greco, G., Kurz, A., Palmigiano, A., Sikimić, V.: Multi-type sequent calculi. In: Indrzejczak, A., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Trends in Logic XIII, pp. 81–93 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Frittella, S., Greco, G., Palmigiano, A., Yang, F.: A multi-type calculus for inquisitive logic. In: Väänänen, J., Hirvonen, Å., de Queiroz, R. (eds.) WoLLIC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9803, pp. 215–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52921-8_14

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Greco, G., Ma, M., Palmigiano, A., Tzimoulis, A., Zhao, Z.: Unified correspondence as a proof-theoretic tool. J. Logic Comput. 28(7), 1367–1442 (2018)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59830-2

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Greco, G., Kurz, A., Palmigiano, A.: Dynamic epistemic logic displayed. In: Grossi, D., Roy, O., Huang, H. (eds.) LORI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8196, pp. 135–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40948-6_11

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Greco, G., Liang, F., Manoorkar, K., Palmigiano, A.: Proper multi-type display calculi for rough algebras. arXiv preprint 1808.07278

  11. Greco, G., Liang, F., Moshier, M.A., Palmigiano, A.: Multi-type display calculus for semi De Morgan logic. In: Kennedy, J., de Queiroz, R.J.G.B. (eds.) WoLLIC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10388, pp. 199–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55386-2_14

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Greco, G., Liang, F., Palmigiano, A., Rivieccio, U.: Bilattice logic properly displayed. Fuzzy Sets Syst. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2018.05.007

  13. Greco, G., Palmigiano, A.: Linear logic properly displayed. arXiv preprint: 1611.04184

  14. Greco, G., Palmigiano, A.: Lattice logic properly displayed. In: Kennedy, J., de Queiroz, R.J.G.B. (eds.) WoLLIC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10388, pp. 153–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55386-2_11

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Kent, R.E.: Rough concept analysis: a synthesis of rough sets and formal concept analysis. Fundamenta Informaticae 27(2, 3), 169–181 (1996)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Liang, F.: Multi-type algebraic proof theory. Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ma, M., Chakraborty, M.K., Lin, Z.: Sequent calculi for varieties of topological quasi-Boolean algebras. In: Nguyen, H.S., Ha, Q.-T., Li, T., Przybyła-Kasperek, M. (eds.) IJCRS 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11103, pp. 309–322. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99368-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Manoorkar, K., Nazari, S., Palmigiano, A., Tzimoulis, A., Wijnberg, N.M.: Rough concepts (2018, Submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pawlak, Z.: Rough set theory and its applications to data analysis. Cybern. Syst. 29(7), 661–688 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Saha, A., Sen, J., Chakraborty, M.K.: Algebraic structures in the vicinity of pre-rough algebra and their logics. Inf. Sci. 282, 296–320 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Saha, A., Sen, J., Chakraborty, M.K.: Algebraic structures in the vicinity of pre-rough algebra and their logics II. Inf. Sci. 333, 44–60 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Sen, J., Chakraborty, M.K.: A study of interconnections between rough and 3-valued Łukasiewicz logics. Fundamenta Informaticae 51(3), 311–324 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Tzimoulis, A.: Algebraic and proof-theoretic foundations of the logics for social behaviour. Ph.D. thesis, TUDelft (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wansing, H.: Sequent systems for modal logics. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, pp. 61–145. Springer, Dordrecht (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0387-2_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Apostolos Tzimoulis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

A Properties

A Properties

Throughout this section, we let \(\mathsf {K}\in \{aKa, aKa5', K\text {-}IA3_{\ell }\}\), and \(\mathsf {HK}\) the class of heterogeneous algebras corresponding to \(\mathsf {K}\). Further, we let \(\text {D.K}\) denote the multi-type calculus for the logic \(\text {H.K}\) canonically associated with \(\mathsf {K}\).

1.1 A.1 Soundness for Perfect \(\mathsf {HK}\) Algebras

The verification of the soundness of the rules of \(\text {D.K} \) w.r.t. the semantics of perfect elements of \(\mathsf {HK}\) (see Definition 9) is analogous to that of many other multi-type calculi (cf. [6, 11,12,13,14, 16, 23]). Here we only discuss the soundness of the rule \(k\text {-}ia3_{\ell }\). By definition, the following quasi-inequality is valid on every K-IA3\(_{\ell }\):

$$\begin{aligned} \Box _{\ell } a\le \Box _{\ell } b \text { and } \Diamond _{\ell } a\le \Diamond _{\ell } b\text { imply } a\le b. \end{aligned}$$

This quasi-inequality equivalently translates into the multi-type language as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} \Box _C\, {\bullet _C}\, a\le \Box _C\, {\bullet _C}\, b \text { and } \Diamond _I\, {\bullet _I}\, a\le \Diamond _I\, {\bullet _I}\, b\text { imply } a\le b. \end{aligned}$$

By adjunction, the quasi-inequality above can be equivalently rewritten as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} \Diamond _C\, {\bullet _C}\, \Box _C\, {\bullet _C}\, a\le b \text { and } a\le \Box _I\, {\bullet _I}\, \Diamond _I\, {\bullet _I}\, b\text { imply } a\le b, \end{aligned}$$

which, thanks to a well known property of adjoint maps, simplifies as:

$$\begin{aligned} \Diamond _C\, {\bullet _C}\, a\le b \text { and } a\le \Box _I\, {\bullet _I}\, b\text { imply } a\le b. \end{aligned}$$

Hence, the quasi-inequality above is equivalent to the following inequality:

$$\begin{aligned} a\wedge \Box _I\, {\bullet _I}\, b\le \Diamond _C\, {\bullet _C}\, a\vee b. \end{aligned}$$

The inequality above is analytic inductive (cf. [7, Definition 55]), and hence running ALBA on this inequality produces:

figure t

The last quasi-inequality above is the semantic translation of the rule \(k\text {-}ia3_{\ell }\):

figure u

which we then proved to be sound on every perfect heterogeneous K-IA3\(_{\ell }\), by the soundness of the ALBA steps. Likewise, the defining condition of K-IA3\(_{\ell }\) translates into the inequality

which, however, is not analytic inductive, and hence it cannot be transformed into an analytic rule via ALBA.

1.2 A.2 Completeness

Let \(A^\tau \vdash B^\tau \) be the translation of any sequent \(A\vdash B\) in the language of \(\text {H.K}\) into the language of \(\text {D.K}\) induced by the correspondence between \(\mathsf {K}\) and \(\mathsf {HK}\) described in Sect. 5.

Proposition 3

For every \(\text {H.K}\)-derivable sequent \(A {\ \vdash \ }B\), the sequent \(A^{\tau } {\ \vdash \ }B^{\tau }\) is derivable in \(\text {D.K}\).

Below we provide the multi-type translations of the single-type sequents corresponding to inequalities (11). All of them are derivable in D.AKA by logical introduction rules, display rules, and the rules \(\,\check{\Box }\, \,\tilde{{\bullet }}\, \) and .

figure v

Below we provide the multi-type translations of the single-type sequents corresponding to inequalities (12) and (13), respectively. All of them are derivable in D.AKA by logical introduction rules and display rules.

figure w

Below we provide the multi-type translation of the single-type sequents corresponding to inequalities (18). All of them are derivable in D.AKA5’.

figure x

Below we provide the multi-type translations of the single-type rules corresponding to quasi-inequality (20), respectively.

figure y

Below, we derive (20). Firstly, \(A \wedge \Box _C\, {\bullet _C}\, B {\ \vdash \ }\Diamond _I\, {\bullet _I}\, A \vee B\) is derivable via \(k\text {-}ia3_\ell \) by means of the following derivation \(\mathcal {D}\):

figure z

Assuming \(\Diamond _I\, {\bullet _I}\, A {\ \vdash \ }\Diamond _I\, {\bullet _I}\, B\) and \(\Box _C\, {\bullet _C}\, A {\ \vdash \ }\Box _C\, {\bullet _C}\, B\), we derive \(A{\ \vdash \ }B\) via cut as follows:

figure aa

1.3 A.3 Conservativity

To argue that \(\text {D.K}\) is conservative w.r.t. \(\text {H.K}\), we follow the standard proof strategy discussed in [7, 9]. We need to show that, for all formulas A and B in the language of \(\text {H.K}\), if \(A^\tau \vdash B^\tau \) is a \(\text {D.K}\)-derivable sequent, then \(A \vdash B\) is derivable in \(\text {H.K}\). This claim can be proved using the following facts: (a) The rules of \(\text {D.K}\) are sound w.r.t. perfect members of \(\mathsf {HK}\) (cf. Sect. A.1); (b) \(\text {H.K}\) is complete w.r.t. the class of perfect algebras in \(\mathsf {K}\); (c) A perfect element of \(\mathsf {K}\) is equivalently presented as a perfect member of \(\mathsf {HK}\) so that the semantic consequence relations arising from each type of structures preserve and reflect the translation. Let AB be as above. If \(A^\tau \vdash B^\tau \) is \(\text {D.K}\)-derivable, then by (a), \(\models _{\mathbb {HK}} A^\tau \vdash B^\tau \). By (c), this implies that \(\models _{\mathsf {K}} A\vdash B\), where \(\models _{\mathsf {K}}\) denotes the semantic consequence relation arising from the perfect members of class \(\mathsf {K}\). By (b), this implies that \(A\vdash B\) is derivable in \(\text {H.K}\), as required.

1.4 A.4 Cut Elimination and Subformula Property

Cut elimination and subformula property for each \(\text {D.K}\) are obtained by verifying the assumptions of [5, Theorem 4.1]. All of them except \(\mathrm {C}'_8\) are readily satisfied by inspecting the rules. Condition \(\mathrm {C}'_8\) requires to check that reduction steps can be performed for every application of cut in which both cut-formulas are principal, which either remove the original cut altogether or replace it by one or more cuts on formulas of strictly lower complexity. In what follows, we only show \(\mathrm {C}'_8\) for some heterogeneous connectives.

figure ab
figure ac

The remaining cases are analogous.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Greco, G., Jipsen, P., Manoorkar, K., Palmigiano, A., Tzimoulis, A. (2019). Logics for Rough Concept Analysis. In: Khan, M., Manuel, A. (eds) Logic and Its Applications. ICLA 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11600. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58771-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58771-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58770-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58771-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics