New Arguments for Adaptive Logics as Unifying Frame for the Defeasible Handling of Inconsistency

Nearly all popular reasoning forms that handle inconsistencies in a defeasible way have been characterised in terms of inconsistency-adaptive logics in standard format. This format has great advantages, which are explained in the first two sections. This suggests that inconsistency-adaptive logics form a suitable unifying framework for handling such reasoning forms. I shall present four new arguments in favour of this suggestion. (1);Identifying equivalent premise sets proceeds along familiar lines and is much easier than for many other formats. (2);Inconsistency-adaptive logics offer maximally consistent interpretations by themselves, without requiring tinkering from their user. (3);Characterization in terms of inconsistency-adaptive logics offers easy extensions and variations (a fascinating new type of example will be given). (4);Inconsistency-adaptive logics allow for axiomatisations that identify a set of isomorphic models and enable one to describe inconsistent models in an unambiguous way.

[1]  Jeff B. Paris,et al.  On LP-models of arithmetic , 2008, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[2]  Graham Priest,et al.  Minimally inconsistent LP , 1991, Stud Logica.

[3]  Diderik Batens,et al.  A Universal Logic Approach to Adaptive Logics , 2007, Logica Universalis.

[4]  Charles S. Peirce,et al.  Studies in Logic , 2008 .

[5]  W. Carnielli,et al.  Logics of Formal Inconsistency , 2007 .

[6]  S. C. Kleene,et al.  Introduction to Metamathematics , 1952 .

[7]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Some Syntactic Approaches to the Handling of Inconsistent Knowledge Bases: A Comparative Study Part 1: The Flat Case , 1997, Stud Logica.

[8]  David Makinson,et al.  Bridges from classical to nonmonotonic logic , 2005, Texts in computing.

[9]  Diderik Batens,et al.  Towards a Dialogic Interpretation of Dynamic Proofs , 2009 .

[10]  Philip D. Welch,et al.  The Undecidability of Propositional Adaptive Logic , 2006, Synthese.

[11]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic , 2002 .

[12]  Jeff B. Paris,et al.  A Note on Priest's Finite Inconsistent Arithmetics , 2006, J. Philos. Log..

[13]  Walter Alexandre Carnielli,et al.  Limits for Paraconsistent Calculi , 1999, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[14]  Graham Priest,et al.  Inconsistent models of arithmetic Part II: the general case , 2000, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

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

[16]  Diderik Batens,et al.  Adaptive Cn logics , 2009 .

[17]  Diderik Batens.  A procedural criterion for final derivability in inconsistency-adaptive logics , 2005, J. Appl. Log..

[18]  Peter Verdée.  A proof procedure for adaptive logics , 2013, Log. J. IGPL.

[19]  Diderik Batens,et al.  Yes fellows, most human reasoning is complex , 2007, Synthese.

[20]  Graham Priest,et al.  Is arithmetic consistent , 1994 .

[21]  Diderik Batens,et al.  A Rich Paraconsistent Extension Of Full Positive Logic , 2004 .

[22]  W. Carnielli,et al.  JOÃO MARCOS LOGICS OF FORMAL INCONSISTENCY , 2001 .

[23]  Marcelo E. Coniglio,et al.  The Many Sides of Logic , 2009 .

[24]  Graham Priest,et al.  Inconsistent Models of Arithmetic Part I: Finite Models , 1997, J. Philos. Log..

[25]  Diderik Batens,et al.  On the Transparency of Defeasible Logics: Equivalent Premise Sets, Equivalence of Their Extensions, and Maximality of the Lower Limit , 2009 .

[26]  Newton C. A. da Costa,et al.  On the theory of inconsistent formal systems , 1974, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[27]  D. Batens.  A General Characterization of Adaptive Logics , 2001 .

[28]  D. Batens.  TOWARDS THE UNIFICATION OF INCONSISTENCY HANDLING MECHANISMS , 2004 .