1 edition of A General Framework for Reasoning On Inconsistency found in the catalog.
This SpringerBrief proposes a general framework for reasoning about inconsistency in a wide variety of logics, including inconsistency resolution methods that have not yet been studied. The proposed framework allows users to specify preferences on how to resolve inconsistency when there are multiple ways to do so. This empowers users to resolve inconsistency in data leveraging both their detailed knowledge of the data as well as their application needs. The brief shows that the framework is well-suited to handle inconsistency in several logics, and provides algorithms to compute preferred options. Finally, the brief shows that the framework not only captures several existing works, but also supports reasoning about inconsistency in several logics for which no such methods exist today.
|Statement||by Maria Vanina Martinez, Cristian Molinaro, V.S. Subrahmanian, Leila Amgoud|
|Series||SpringerBriefs in Computer Science|
|Contributions||Molinaro, Cristian, Subrahmanian, V. S., Amgoud, Leila, SpringerLink (Online service)|
|LC Classifications||Q334-342, TJ210.2-211.495|
|The Physical Object|
|Format||[electronic resource] /|
|Pagination||VII, 45 p.|
|Number of Pages||45|
list of the type-specimens of Ornithoptera (Lepidoptera : Papilionidae) inthe British Museum (Natural History).
Textures Soft Shapes Assort (Sams)
Communication from the Commission to the Council on the progress achieved in the first stage of economic and monetary union, on the allocation of powers and responsibilities among the Community institutions and the Member States essential to the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, and on the measures to be taken in the second stage of economic and monetary union
Apple Garnishing-Gift Boxed
The vagabond king
Medicare ambulatory surgical center payment rate survey, 1992
What about Communism?
This SpringerBrief proposes a general framework for reasoning about inconsistency in a wide variety of logics, including inconsistency resolution methods that have not yet been studied.
The proposed framework allows users to specify preferences on how to resolve inconsistency when there are. 3 A general framework for handling inconsistency This section proposes a general framework for handling in-consistency under any logic.
Reasoning with inconsistent knowledge bases is a process which follows three steps: 1. Constructing consistent subbases, 2. Selecting among all the subbases the preferred ones, called preferred subbases, 3.
A General Framework for Reasoning On Inconsistency. Find all books from Cristian Molinaro, Leila Amgoud, Maria Vanina Martinez, V.S. Subrahmanian. At you can find used, antique and new books, compare results and immediately purchase Brand: Springer New York.
Request PDF | A General Framework for Reasoning about Inconsistency. | Numerous logics have been developed for reason- ing about inconsistency which differ in (i) the logic to which they apply. reasoning - Read online for free. education. Close suggestions. Upload. CiteSeerX - Document Details (Isaac Councill, Lee Giles, Pradeep Teregowda): Numerous logics have been developed for reasoning about inconsistency which differ in (i) the logic to which they apply, and (ii) the criteria used to draw inferences.
In this paper, we propose a general framework for reasoning about inconsistency in a wide variety of logics including ones for which inconsistency. CiteSeerX - Document Details (Isaac Councill, Lee Giles, Pradeep Teregowda): Numerous logics have been developed for reason-ing about inconsistency which differ in (i) the logic to which they apply, and (ii) the criteria used to draw inferences.
In this paper, we propose a gen-eral framework for reasoning about inconsistency in a wide variety of logics including ones for which inconsistency. This SpringerBrief proposes a general framework for reasoning about inconsistency in a wide variety of logics, including inconsistency resolution methods that have not yet been studied.
The proposed framework allows users to specify preferences on how to resolve inconsistency when there are multiple ways to do so.
This empowers users to resolve inconsistency in data leveraging both their. Subrahmanian VS, Amgoud L () A general framework for reasoning about inconsistency. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), Hyderabad, pp – Google Scholar.
A General Framework for Reasoning On Inconsistency. by Maria Vanina Martinez,Cristian Molinaro,V.S. Subrahmanian,Leila Amgoud. SpringerBriefs in Computer Science. Share your thoughts Complete your review. Tell readers what you thought by rating and reviewing this book.
Rate it Brand: Springer New York. In this paper, a fairly general framework for reasoning from inconsistent propositional bases is defined. Variable forgetting is used as a basic operation for weakening pieces of information so as. A General Framework for Reasoning On Inconsistency.
por Maria Vanina Martinez,Cristian Molinaro,V.S. Subrahmanian,Leila Amgoud. SpringerBriefs in Computer Science ¡Gracias por compartir. Has enviado la siguiente calificación y reseña. Lo publicaremos A General Framework for Reasoning On Inconsistency book nuestro sitio Brand: Springer New York.
The main purpose is the formalization of a framework which would be capable of handling a wide range of description languages for inconsistency-tolerant ontology reasoning. Thus, assuming an AL-framework π ∈ L, for the argument language A π, several possibilities may arise; for instance, the language for claims may accept disjunction of.
General Framework for Reasoning on Inconsistency. Find all books from Maria Vanina Martinez; Cristian Molinaro; V. Subrahmanian; Leila Amgoud. At you can find used, antique and new books, compare results and immediately purchase your selection at the best price. In this paper, a fairly general framework for reasoning from inconsistent propositional bases is defined.
Variable forgetting is used as a basic operation for weakening pieces of information so as to restore consistency.
The key notion is that of recoveries, which are sets of variables whose forgetting enables restoring consistency. Several. Intuitively, argumentation is a tool for reasoning with inconsistent knowledge: requirements are defined in terms of arguments (a conclusion with its support); then, a class of acceptable arguments is built (arguments with no counter arguments).
provide a general framework for probabilistic reas-oning under inconsistency. To do so, we util-ize inconsistency measures to determine probabil-ity functions that are closest to satisfying the know-ledge base.
We illustrate our approach on several examples and show that it has both nice formal and computational properties. 1 Introduction. The use of logic in identifying and analyzing inconsistency in requirements from multiple stakeholders has been found to be effective in a number of studies.
Nonmonotonic logic is a theoretically w. Janina Klemm, Pamela Flores, Beate Sodian, Birgit J. Neuhaus, Scientific Reasoning in Biology – the Impact of Domain-General and Domain-Specific Concepts on Children’s Observation Competency, Frontiers in Psychology, /fpsyg, 11, ().
Approximate reasoning has generated a very interesting literature in recent years. However, in spite of several basic results, in our opinion, we are still far from a satisfactory setting of this very hard and mysterious subject. The aim of this book is to furnish some theoretical devices and to sketch a general framework for fuzzy logic.
The theory of belief functions, also referred to as evidence theory or Dempster–Shafer theory (DST), is a general framework for reasoning with uncertainty, with understood connections to other frameworks such as probability, possibility and imprecise probability theories.
In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pp. Google Scholar . Mu, Kedian, Liu, Weiru and Jin, Zhi, A general framework for measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets.
Knowl. Inf. Syst. v27 i1. Google Scholar . Entailment Functions and Reasoning under Inconsistency Extended Abstract Yakoub Salhi CRIL - CNRS, Université d’Artois Lens, France [email protected] ABSTRACT This study proposes an intuitive and flexible framework for defin-ing a large variety of paraconsistent entailment relations.
We first introduce a notion named entailment function (EF. A general framework for constructing and using probabilistic models of complex systems that would enable a computer to use available information for making decisions.
Most tasks require a person or an automated system to reason—to reach conclusions based on available information. The framework of probabilistic graphical models, presented in this book, provides a general approach for this task. with their former beliefs, one may expect from any descriptive reasoning the-ory that it includes defeasibility in its framework.
Below, we briefly describe four theories of human reasoning, and how they accommodate for reasoning from inconsistency. Natural deduction Many older psychological theories of reasoning postulate that people are.
A propositional logic is called ideal (for reasoning with inconsistency), if it is • -paraconsistent, • normal (i.e., -contained in classical logic and has a proper implication), • maximal relative to classical logic, and • maximally paraconsistent.
Inconsistency maintenance Two notions of maximality: 1. Thomas Fowler believed that petitio principii would be more properly called petitio quæsiti, which is literally "begging the question".
Definition. To "beg the question" is (also called petitio principii) to attempt to support a claim with a premise that itself restates or presupposes the claim.
It is an attempt to prove a proposition while simultaneously taking the proposition for granted. A vital contribution to legal theory and media and civic discourse In the s, northern newspapers attacked Abraham Lincoln's policies by attacking his character, using the terms “drunk,” “baboon,” “too slow,” “foolish,” and “dishonest.” Political argumentation has steadily increased since then and the argumentum ad hominem, or personal attack argument, has now been 5/5(2).
This book, Applications and Practices in Ontology Design, Extraction, and Reasoning, has as its main goal the provision of an overview of application fields for semantic web technologies. In particular, it investigates how state-of-the-art formal languages, models, methods, and applications of semantic web technologies reframe research.
Aporetics: Rational Deliberation in the Face of Inconsistency - Kindle edition by Rescher, Nicholas. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets.
Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Aporetics: Rational Deliberation in the Face of s: 1.
This book constitutes the proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCSheld in Iaşi, Romania, in July The 17 regular papers and 6 short papers presented in this volume were carefully reviewed and selected from 40 and 10 submissions, respectively.
The. This latter work dovetails with the claims made in this paper, and potentially provides an overarching framework for argument evaluation in general. In this light, the BN framework, combined with causal idioms, seems an apposite framework to revisit earlier models of juror reasoning.
Interesting not only as a historical artifact on an application of "game theoretic" reasoning, but also the foundations of US cold war strategic thinking. Much of the book uses game theory more as a general framework for reasoning, and less as an abstract construct.4/5(51).
Logic is the science of correct reasoning. What then is reasoning. According to Aristotle [13, Topics, a25], reasoning is any argument in which certain assumptions or premises are laid down and then something other than these necessarily follows.
Thus logic. The word apory stems from the Greek aporia, meaning impasse or perplexing difficulty. In Aporetics, Nicholas Rescher defines an apory as a group of individually plausible but collectively incompatible theses.
Rescher examines historic, formulaic, and systematic apories and couples these with aporetic theory from other authors to form this original and comprehensive s: 1. Reasoning About Knowledge is the first book to provide a general discussion of approaches to reasoning about knowledge and its applications to distributed systems, artificial intelligence, and game theory.
It brings eight years of work by the authors into a cohesive framework for understanding and analyzing reasoning about knowledge that is.
Full Description "Routines for Reasoning will help teachers think a lot harder about what the mathematical practices mean This book should be on every mathematics teacher’s bookshelf." — Elham Kazemi, Geda and Phil Condit Professor in Mathematics Education, University of Washington; coauthor of Intentional Talk "This book is a must read for every K–12 teacher serious about shifting.
Inventing novel knowledge to solve problems is a crucial, creative, mechanism employed by humans, to extend their range of action. In this talk, I will show how commonsense reasoning plays a. The Duty Framework In the Duty framework, we focus on the duties and obligations that we have in a given situation, and consider what ethical obligations we have and what things we should never do.
Ethical conduct is defined by doing one’s duties and doing the. Reasons for the Low Rate of Conviction in the VAW Cases and Inconsistencies in the Legislative Framework. / Naznin, S. Atia; Sharmin, Tanjina. Dhaka Bangladesh: BRAC University, p.
Research output: Book/Report › Other Report › Research. The LibreTexts libraries are Powered by MindTouch ® and are supported by the Department of Education Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions Program, and Merlot.
We also acknowledge previous National Science Foundation support under grant numbers, and Among qualitative reasoning platforms, the Sign Consistency Model (SCM) is a framework for modelling influence graphs by confronting a network of labelled interactions with quantitative data, imposing a collection of constraints.
In the context of regulatory networks, SCM can be used to check whether an observed behaviour can be explained or if.This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J.
Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, and Kirk O. Hanson. It was last revised in May