Interdefinability of defeasible logic and logic programming under the well-founded semantics

We provide a method of translating theories of Nute's defeasible logic into logic programs, and a corresponding translation in the opposite direction. Under certain natural restrictions, the conclusions of defeasible theories under the ambiguity propagating defeasible logic ADL correspond to those of the well-founded semantics for normal logic programs, and so it turns out that the two formalisms are closely related. Using the same translation of logic programs into defeasible theories, the semantics for the ambiguity blocking defeasible logic NDL can be seen as indirectly providing an ambiguity blocking semantics for logic programs. We also provide antimonotone operators for both ADL and NDL, each based on the Gelfond-Lifschitz (GL) operator for logic programs. For defeasible theories without defeaters or priorities on rules, the operator for ADL corresponds to the GL operator and so can be seen as partially capturing the consequences according to ADL. Similarly, the operator for NDL captures the consequences according to NDL, though in this case no restrictions on theories apply. Both operators can be used to define stable model semantics for defeasible theories.Comment: 36 pages; To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP

Analyse de la structure logique des inférences légales et modélisation du discours juridique

Thèse par articles.La présente thèse fait état des avancées en logique déontique et propose des outils formels pertinents à l'analyse de la validité des inférences légales. D'emblée, la logique vise l'abstraction de différentes structures. Lorsqu'appliquée en argumentation, la logique permet de déterminer les conditions de validité des inférences, fournissant ainsi un critère afin de distinguer entre les bons et les mauvais raisonnements. Comme le montre la multitude de paradoxes en logique déontique, la modélisation des inférences normatives fait cependant face à divers problèmes. D'un point de vue historique, ces difficultés ont donné lieu à différents courants au sein de la littérature, dont les plus importants à ce jour sont ceux qui traitent de l'action et ceux qui visent la modélisation des obligations conditionnelles. La présente thèse de doctorat, qui a été rédigée par articles, vise le développement d'outils formels pertinents à l'analyse du discours juridique. En première partie, nous proposons une revue de la littérature complémentaire à ce qui a été entamé dans Peterson (2011). La seconde partie comprend la contribution théorique proposée. Dans un premier temps, il s'agit d'introduire une logique déontique alternative au système standard. Sans prétendre aller au-delà de ses limites, le système standard de logique déontique possède plusieurs lacunes. La première contribution de cette thèse est d'offrir un système comparable répondant au différentes objections pouvant être formulées contre ce dernier. Cela fait l'objet de deux articles, dont le premier introduit le formalisme nécessaire et le second vulgarise les résultats et les adapte aux fins de l'étude des raisonnements normatifs. En second lieu, les différents problèmes auxquels la logique déontique fait face sont abordés selon la perspective de la théorie des catégories. En analysant la syntaxe des différents systèmes à l'aide des catégories monoïdales, il est possible de lier certains de ces problèmes avec des propriétés structurelles spécifiques des logiques utilisées. Ainsi, une lecture catégorique de la logique déontique permet de motiver l'introduction d'une nouvelle approche syntaxique, définie dans le cadre des catégories monoïdales, de façon à pallier les problèmes relatifs à la modélisation des inférences normatives. En plus de proposer une analyse des différentes logiques de l'action selon la théorie des catégories, la présente thèse étudie les problèmes relatifs aux inférences normatives conditionnelles et propose un système déductif typé.The present thesis develops formal tools relevant to the analysis of legal discourse. When applied to legal reasoning, logic can be used to model the structure of legal inferences and, as such, it provides a criterion to discriminate between good and bad reasonings. But using logic to model normative reasoning comes with some problems, as shown by the various paradoxes one finds within the literature. From a historical point of view, these paradoxes lead to the introduction of different approaches, such as the ones that emphasize the notion of action and those that try to model conditional normative reasoning. In the first part of this thesis, we provide a review of the literature, which is complementary to the one we did in Peterson (2011). The second part of the thesis concerns our theoretical contribution. First, we propose a monadic deontic logic as an alternative to the standard system, answering many objections that can be made against it. This system is then adapted to model unconditional normative inferences and test their validity. Second, we propose to look at deontic logic from the proof-theoretical perspective of category theory. We begin by proposing a categorical analysis of action logics and then we show that many problems that arise when trying to model conditional normative reasoning come from the structural properties of the logic we use. As such, we show that modeling normative reasoning within the framework of monoidal categories enables us to answer many objections in favour of dyadic and non-monotonic foundations for deontic logic. Finally, we propose a proper typed deontic system to model legal inferences

Logics of formal inconsistency

Orientadores: Walter Alexandre Carnielli, Carlos M. C. L. CaleiroTexto em ingles e portuguesTese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias HumanasTese (doutorado) - Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa, Instituto Superior TecnicoResumo: Segundo a pressuposição de consistência clássica, as contradições têm um cará[c]ter explosivo; uma vez que estejam presentes em uma teoria, tudo vale, e nenhum raciocínio sensato pode então ter lugar. Uma lógica é paraconsistente se ela rejeita uma tal pressuposição, e aceita ao invés que algumas teorias inconsistentes conquanto não-triviais façam perfeito sentido. A? Lógicas da Inconsistência Formal, LIFs, formam uma classe de lógicas paraconsistentes particularmente expressivas nas quais a noção meta-teónca de consistência pode ser internalizada ao nível da linguagem obje[c]to. Como consequência, as LIFs são capazes de recapturar o raciocínio consistente pelo acréscimo de assunções de consistência apropriadas. Assim, por exemplo, enquanto regras clássicas tais como o silogismo disjuntivo (de A e {não-,4)-ou-13, infira B) estão fadadas a falhar numa lógica paraconsistente (pois A e (nao-A) poderiam ambas ser verdadeiras para algum A, independentemente de B), elas podem ser recuperadas por uma LIF se o conjunto das premissas for ampliado pela presunção de que estamos raciocinando em um ambiente consistente (neste caso, pelo acréscimo de (consistente-.A) como uma hipótese adicional da regra). A presente monografia introduz as LIFs e apresenta diversas ilustrações destas lógicas e de suas propriedades, mostrando que tais lógicas constituem com efeito a maior parte dos sistemas paraconsistentes da literatura. Diversas formas de se efe[c]tuar a recaptura do raciocínio consistente dentro de tais sistemas inconsistentes são também ilustradas Em cada caso, interpretações em termos de semânticas polivalentes, de traduções possíveis ou modais são fornecidas, e os problemas relacionados à provisão de contrapartidas algébricas para tais lógicas são examinados. Uma abordagem formal abstra[cjta é proposta para todas as definições relacionadas e uma extensa investigação é feita sobre os princípios lógicos e as propriedades positivas e negativas da negação.Abstract: According to the classical consistency presupposition, contradictions have an explosive character: Whenever they are present in a theory, anything goes, and no sensible reasoning can thus take place. A logic is paraconsistent if it disallows such presupposition, and allows instead for some inconsistent yet non-trivial theories to make perfect sense. The Logics of Formal Inconsistency, LFIs, form a particularly expressive class of paraconsistent logics in which the metatheoretical notion of consistency can be internalized at the object-language level. As a consequence, the LFIs are able to recapture consistent reasoning by the addition of appropriate consistency assumptions. So, for instance, while classical rules such as disjunctive syllogism (from A and (not-A)-or-B, infer B) are bound to fail in a paraconsistent logic (because A and (not-.4) could both be true for some A, independently of B), they can be recovered by an LFI if the set of premises is enlarged by the presumption that we are reasoning in a consistent environment (in this case, by the addition of (consistent-/!) as an extra hypothesis of the rule). The present monograph introduces the LFIs and provides several illustrations of them and of their properties, showing that such logics constitute in fact the majority of interesting paraconsistent systems from the literature. Several ways of performing the recapture of consistent reasoning inside such inconsistent systems are also illustrated. In each case, interpretations in terms of many-valued, possible-translations, or modal semantics are provided, and the problems related to providing algebraic counterparts to such logics are surveyed. A formal abstract approach is proposed to all related definitions and an extended investigation is carried out into the logical principles and the positive and negative properties of negation.DoutoradoFilosofiaDoutor em Filosofia e Matemátic

Attribute value phonology

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:D93955 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo