7,663 research outputs found
Topological Models of Columnar Vagueness
This paper intends to further the understanding of the formal properties of (higher-order) vagueness by connecting theories of (higher-order) vagueness with more recent work in topology. First, we provide a “translation” of Bobzien's account of columnar higher-order vagueness into the logic of topological spaces. Since columnar vagueness is an essential ingredient of her solution to the Sorites paradox, a central problem of any theory of vagueness comes into contact with the modern mathematical theory of topology. Second, Rumfitt’s recent topological reconstruction of Sainsbury’s theory of prototypically defined concepts is shown to lead to the same class of spaces that characterize Bobzien’s account of columnar vagueness, namely, weakly scattered spaces. Rumfitt calls these spaces polar spaces. They turn out to be closely related to Gärdenfors’ conceptual spaces, which have come to play an ever more important role in cognitive science and related disciplines. Finally, Williamson’s “logic of clarity” is explicated in terms of a generalized topology (“locology”) that can be considered an alternative to standard topology. Arguably, locology has some conceptual advantages over topology with respect to the conceptualization of a boundary and a borderline. Moreover, in Williamson’s logic of clarity, vague concepts with respect to a notion of a locologically inspired notion of a “slim boundary” are (stably) columnar. Thus, Williamson’s logic of clarity also exhibits a certain affinity for columnar vagueness. In sum, a topological perspective is useful for a conceptual elucidation and unification of central aspects of a variety of contemporary accounts of vagueness
A reconstruction of the multipreference closure
The paper describes a preferential approach for dealing with exceptions in
KLM preferential logics, based on the rational closure. It is well known that
the rational closure does not allow an independent handling of the inheritance
of different defeasible properties of concepts. Several solutions have been
proposed to face this problem and the lexicographic closure is the most notable
one. In this work, we consider an alternative closure construction, called the
Multi Preference closure (MP-closure), that has been first considered for
reasoning with exceptions in DLs. Here, we reconstruct the notion of MP-closure
in the propositional case and we show that it is a natural variant of Lehmann's
lexicographic closure. Abandoning Maximal Entropy (an alternative route already
considered but not explored by Lehmann) leads to a construction which exploits
a different lexicographic ordering w.r.t. the lexicographic closure, and
determines a preferential consequence relation rather than a rational
consequence relation. We show that, building on the MP-closure semantics,
rationality can be recovered, at least from the semantic point of view,
resulting in a rational consequence relation which is stronger than the
rational closure, but incomparable with the lexicographic closure. We also show
that the MP-closure is stronger than the Relevant Closure.Comment: 57 page
Yet More Modal Logics of Preference Change and Belief Revision
We contrast Bonanno's `Belief Revision in a Temporal Framework'
\cite{Bonanno07:briatfTV} with preference change and belief revision
from the perspective of dynamic epistemic logic (DEL).
For that, we extend the
logic of communic
Kleene algebra with domain
We propose Kleene algebra with domain (KAD), an extension of Kleene algebra
with two equational axioms for a domain and a codomain operation, respectively.
KAD considerably augments the expressiveness of Kleene algebra, in particular
for the specification and analysis of state transition systems. We develop the
basic calculus, discuss some related theories and present the most important
models of KAD. We demonstrate applicability by two examples: First, an
algebraic reconstruction of Noethericity and well-foundedness; second, an
algebraic reconstruction of propositional Hoare logic.Comment: 40 page
Knowledge Grounded on Pure Reasoning
In this paper I deal with epistemological issues that stem from the hypothesis that reasoning is not only a means of transmitting knowledge from premise-beliefs to conclusion-beliefs, but also a primary source of knowledge in its own right. The idea is that one can gain new knowledge on the basis of suppositional reasoning. After making some preliminary distinctions, I argue that there are no good reasons to think that purported examples of knowledge grounded on pure reasoning are just examples of premise-based inferences in disguise. Next, I establish what kinds of true propositions can to a first approximation be known on the basis of pure reasoning. Finally, I argue that beliefs that are competently formed on the basis of suppositional reasoning satisfy both externalist and internalist criteria of justification
- …