Abstract Interfaces of Input/Output Logic

  • Audun Stolpe
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 3)


The presents chapter investigates to what extent techniques from belief revision and propositional relevance can be transposed into the context of input/output logic. The study is focused on parallel interpolation, finest splittings, contraction and relevant contraction. We show that basic properties of different input/output logic systems influence the existence of interfaces between the different idioms. E.g. we show that the operator of simple-minded output satisfies parallel interpolation, whilst basic output does not. We use parallel interpolation to prove the existence of finest splittings, and, in analogy with propositional relevance, use finest splittings to define a concept of relevance—one that is attuned to the idiosyncracies of codes of norms. Next, we define an operation of derogation of codes of norms, and temper it by our concept of normative relevance. The chapter ends with an illustration of how the pieces fit together, by giving an analysis of the concept of positive permission.


Input/Output logic Finest splittings Parallell interpolation Normative systems 


  1. Alchourron, C., & Makinson, D. (1981). Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In R. Hilpinen (Ed.), New studies in deontic logic (pp. 125–148). Dodrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bochmann, A. (2005). Explanatory nonmonotonic reasoning. Volume 4 of avances in logic. Singapore: World Scientific Publishong co.Google Scholar
  3. Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12, 71–79.Google Scholar
  4. Chopra, S., & Parikh, R. (2000). Relevance sensitive belief structures. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 28, 259–285.Google Scholar
  5. Davey, B. A., & Priestley, H. A. (2002). Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ganter, B., & Wille, R. (1999). Formal concept analysis. Mathematical foundations: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Konev, B., Lutz, C., Ponomaryov, D., & Wolter, F. (2010). Decomposing description logic ontologies. In F. Lin & U. Sattler (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2010), AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kourousias, G., & Makinson, D. C. (2007). Parallel interpolation, splitting, and relevance in belief change. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 7, 994–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Makinson, D. (1999). On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In P. MacNamara & H. Prakken (Eds.), Norms, logics and information systems. New studies in deontic logic and computer science. Volume 49 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 29–53). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  10. Makinson, D. (2003). Ways of doing logic: What was different about AGM 1985? Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Makinson, D. (2009). Propositional relevance through letter-sharing. Journal of Applied Logic, 7(4), 377–387. Special Issue: Formal models of belief change in rational agents.Google Scholar
  12. Makinson, D. C. (1996). In memoriam carlos eduardo alchourron. Nordic Journal of Philsophical Logic, 1, 3–10.Google Scholar
  13. Makinson, D., & van der Torre, L. (2000). Input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29, 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Makinson, D., & van der Torre, L. (2001). Constraints for input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 30, 155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Makinson, D., & van der Torre, L. (2003a). Permission from an input/output perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32(4), 391–416.Google Scholar
  16. Makinson, D., & van der Torre, L. (2003b). What is input/output logic? Foundations of the Formal Sciences II: Applications of Mathematical Logic in Philosophy and Linguistics, 17, 163–174.Google Scholar
  17. Parikh, R. (1999). Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  18. Ponomaryov, D. (2008). On decomposibility in logical calculi. Bulletin of the Novosibirsk Computing Center, 28, 111–120.Google Scholar
  19. Schlechta, K. (2004). Coherent systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  20. Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral realism: A defence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stolpe, A. (2010a). Norm-system revision: Theory and application. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18, 247–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stolpe, A. (2010b). Relevance, derogation and permission. In DEON (pp. 98–115).Google Scholar
  23. Stolpe, A. (2010c). A theory of permission based on the notion of derogation. Journal of Applied Logic, 8(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van de Putte, F. (2011). Prime implicates and relevant belief revision. Journal of Logic and Computation 7, 1–11.Google Scholar
  25. van der Torre, L. (2010). Deontic redundancy: A fundamental challenge for deontic logic. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (pp. 11–32). DEON’10, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. von Wright, G.H. (1998). Is and ought. In normativity and norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Defence Research EstablishmentKjellerNorway

Personalised recommendations