Reasoning under inconsistency: the forgotten connective

In many frameworks for reasoning under inconsistency, it is implicitly assumed that the formulae from the belief base are connected using a weak form of conjunction. When it is consistent, a belief base B = {φ1..., φn}, where the φi are propositional formulae, is logically equivalent to the base {φ1 Λ ... Λ φn}. However, when it is not consistent, both bases typically lead to different conclusions. This illustrates the fact that the comma used in base B has to be considered as an additional, genuine connective, and not as a simple conjunction. In this work we define and investigate a propositional framework with such a "comma connective". We give it a semantics and show how it generalizes several approaches for reasoning from inconsistent beliefs.

[1]  N. Rescher,et al.  On inference from inconsistent premisses , 1970 .

[2]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  Verification Programs for Abduction , 2000, ECAI.

[3]  Lakhdar Sais,et al.  Two Proof Procedures for a Cardinality Based Language in Propositional Calculus , 1994, STACS.

[4]  S. Jaskowski Propositional calculus for contradictory deductive systems , 1969 .

[5]  Greg Restall,et al.  An Introduction to Substructural Logics , 2000 .

[6]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Logic of Merging , 1998, KR.

[7]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  Preferred Subtheories: An Extended Logical Framework for Default Reasoning , 1989, IJCAI.

[8]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  The Size of a Revised Knowledge Base , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging Information Under Constraints: A Logical Framework , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[10]  Marco Schaerf,et al.  Arbitration (or How to Merge Knowledge Bases) , 1998, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[11]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  On Compact Representations of Propositional Circumscription , 1995, STACS.

[12]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Distance Based Merging: A General Framework and some Complexity Results , 2002, KR.

[13]  David Poole,et al.  A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning , 1988, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  In search of the right extension , 2000, KR.

[15]  Marianne Winslett,et al.  Reasoning about Action Using a Possible Models Approach , 1988, AAAI.

[16]  Peter Z. Revesz,et al.  On the Semantics of Arbitration , 1997, Int. J. Algebra Comput..

[17]  Thomas Schiex,et al.  Nonmonotonic reasoning: from complexity to algorithms , 1998, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[18]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-Based Approaches , 1991, KR.

[19]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Resolving Inconsistencies by Variable Forgetting , 2002, KR.

[20]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  On the semantics of updates in databases , 1983, PODS.

[21]  Jürg Kohlas,et al.  Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems , 2000 .

[22]  Jérôme Mengin Logical Connectives for Nonmonotonicity: A Choice Function-Based Approach , 2004, JELIA.

[23]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  The Complexity of Nested Counterfactuals and Iterated Knowledge Base Revisions , 1993, IJCAI.

[24]  Mukesh Dalal,et al.  Investigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision , 1988, AAAI.

[25]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  Non-monotonic Syntax-Based Entailment: A Classification of Consequence Relations , 1995, ECSQARU.

[26]  David W. Etherington Relating Default Logic and Circumscription , 1987, IJCAI.