Which style of reasoning to choose in the face of conflicting information?
Which style of reasoning to choose in the face of conflicting information?
复制标题
面对相互矛盾的信息时应选择哪种推理方式？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
0.7
通讯作者：
P. Verdée
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Meheus;Christian Straßer;P. Verdée
在非单调推理的背景下，定义了用于从(可能)不一致信息进行推理的不同类型的结果关系。例如，根据前提集的最大相容子集来刻画的结果关系。强结果是由经典逻辑从每个极大相容子集得出的公式。弱结果源于某个极大相容子集。自由结果来自于属于每个极大相容子集的公式集。在本文中，讨论了这些结果关系中的哪一种应该应用于哪种推理语境的问题。首先，讨论了文献中对微弱后果的有用性所表示的关切。然后论证了在某些应用背景下，只要有相应的结果关系的(动态)证明理论，作出弱推理是合理的。这样的动态证明理论就是自适应逻辑所提供的。最后，通过一个非常简单的自由、强和弱后果的自适应逻辑重构来说明所有这一切。
In the context of non-monotonic reasoning different kinds of consequence relations are defined for reasoning from (possibly) inconsistent information. Examples are consequence relations that are characterized in terms of maximal consistent subsets of the premise set. The strong consequences are those formulas that follow by Classical Logic from every maximal consistent subset. The weak consequences follow from some maximal consistent subset. The free consequences follow from the set of formulas that belong to every maximal consistent subset. In this paper the question is discussed which of these consequence relations should be applied in which reasoning context. First the concerns that are expressed in the literature with respect to the usefulness of the weak consequences are addressed. Then it is argued that making weak inferences is sensible for some application contexts, provided one has a (dynamic) proof theory for the corresponding consequence relation. Such a dynamic proof theory is what adaptive logics offer. Finally, all this is illustrated by means of a very simple adaptive logic reconstruction of the free, strong, and weak consequences.