Analysis of the Talmudic Argumentum A Fortiori Inference Rule (Kal Vachomer) using Matrix Abduction

We motivate and introduce a new method of abduction, Matrix Abduction, and apply it to modelling the use of non-deductive inferences in the Talmud such as Analogy and the rule of Argumentum A Fortiori. Given a matrix $${\mathbb {A}}$$ with entries in {0, 1}, we allow for one or more blank squares in the matrix, say ai,j =?. The method allows us to decide whether to declare ai,j = 0 or ai,j = 1 or ai,j =? undecided. This algorithmic method is then applied to modelling several legal and practical reasoning situations including the Talmudic rule of Kal-Vachomer. We add an Appendix showing that this new rule of Matrix Abduction, arising from the Talmud, can also be applied to the analysis of paradoxes in voting and judgement aggregation. In fact we have here a general method for executing non-deductive inferences.

[1]  Martin Caminada,et al.  On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[2]  Lawrence G. Sager,et al.  Unpacking the Court , 1986 .

[3]  Louis Jacobs,et al.  Studies In Talmudic Logic And Methodology , 1961 .

[4]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Fibred Security Language , 2009, Stud Logica.

[5]  Menachem Fisch,et al.  Rational Rabbis: Science and Talmudic Culture , 1997 .

[6]  Blair Dillaway,et al.  Abductive Authorization Credential Gathering , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[7]  Dav M. Gabbay.  Chapter 3 – The Structure of Abduction , 2005 .

[8]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Temporal Dynamics of Support and Attack Networks: From Argumentation to Zoology , 2005, Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning.

[9]  L. S. Stebbing.  A modern introduction to logic , 1931 .

[10]  Thomas Grabenhorst.  Das „argumentum a fortiori” , 1988 .

[11]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Logical Modes of Attack in Argumentation Networks , 2009, Stud Logica.

[12]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Resource-origins of Nonmonotonicity , 2008, Stud Logica.

[13]  Lawrence G. Sager,et al.  The One and the Many: Adjudication in Collegial Courts , 1993 .

[14]  Arnold Kunst,et al.  An Overlooked Type of Inference , 1942, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies.

[15]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  The Reach of Abduction , 2005 .

[16]  S. Brams,et al.  The paradox of multiple elections , 1998 .

[17]  Uri J. Schild.  Criminal Sentencing and Intelligent Decision Support , 1998 .

[18]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Reliable Methods of Judgement Aggregation , 2010, J. Log. Comput..

[19]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Premise Independence in Judgment Aggregation , 2007, Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents.

[20]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities , 1997, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[21]  Ahmad Hasan,et al.  Analogical Reasoning In Islamic Jurisprudence A Study of the Juridical Principle of Qiyas , 2011 .

[22]  M. Kamali,et al.  Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence , 1991 .

[23]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Chapter 13 – Labelled Deductive Systems , 2003 .

[24]  Jacob Neusner.  The Making of the Mind of Judaism: The Formative Age , 1987 .

[25]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[26]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  An Argumentation-Theoretic Foundations for Logic Programming , 1995, J. Log. Program..

[27]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  A Meta-model of Access Control in a Fibred Security Language , 2009, Stud Logica.