We introduce a bimodal epistemic logic intended to capture knowledge as truth in all epistemically alternative states and belief as a generalised ‘majority’ quantifier, interpreted as truth in most of the epistemically alternative states. This doxastic interpretation is of interest in knowledge-representation applications and it also holds an independent philosophical and technical appeal. The logic comprises an epistemic modal operator, a doxastic modal operator of consistent and complete belief and ‘bridge’ axioms which relate knowledge to belief. To capture the notion (...) of a ‘majority’ we use the ‘large sets’ introduced independently by K. Schlechta and V. Jauregui, augmented with a requirement of completeness, which furnishes a ‘weak ultrafilter’ concept. We provide semantics in the form of possible-worlds frames, properly blending relational semantics with a version of general Scott–Montague frames and we obtain soundness and completeness results. We examine the validity of certain epistemic principles discussed in the literature, in particular some of the ‘bridge’ axioms discussed by W. Lenzen and R. Stalnaker, as well as the ‘paradox of the perfect believer’, which is not a theorem of. (shrink)

Weak filters were introduced by K. Schlechta in the ’90s with the aim of interpreting defaults via a generalized ‘most’ quantifier in first-order logic. They arguably represent the largest class of structures that qualify as a ‘collection of large subsets’ of a given index set |$I$|⁠, in the sense that it is difficult to think of a weaker, but still plausible, definition of the concept. The notion of weak ultrafilter naturally emerges and has been used in epistemic logic and other (...) knowledge representation (KR) applications. We provide a comprehensive exposition of weak filters and ultrafilters, comparing them with their classical counterparts that have found very important applications in logic, set theory and topology. Weak (ultra)filters capture the ‘majorities’ of social choice theory (which coincide with the commonsense understanding of a ‘large subset’) and in that respect, they outperform classical (ultra)filters in their role as ‘collections of large subsets’. Yet, they lack some of the elegant properties of classical (ultra)filters that make them an almost perfect match for logical theories. We investigate the extent to which some important classical results carry through in this new setting, and we focus on genuinely weak filters and genuinely weak ultrafilters. For weak ultrafilters, we proceed to provide concrete examples, answer questions of existence and characterize their construction. The class of weak (ultra)filters represents a genuine contribution of KR to set theory that might be of some interest to set theorists too and we initiate this study by providing a glimpse on natural set-theoretic questions. (shrink)

Defeasible conditionals are statements of the form ‘if A then normally B’. One plausible interpretation introduced in nonmonotonic reasoning dictates that ) is true iff B is true in ‘most’ A-worlds. In this paper, we investigate defeasible conditionals constructed upon a notion of ‘overwhelming majority’, defined as ‘truth in a cofinite subset of \’, the first infinite ordinal. One approach employs the modal logic of the frame \\), used in the temporal logic of discrete linear time. We introduce and investigate (...) conditionals, defined modally over \\); several modal definitions of the conditional connective are examined, with an emphasis on the nonmonotonic ones. An alternative interpretation of ‘majority’ as sets cofinal ) rather than cofinite ) is examined. For these modal approaches over \\), a decision procedure readily emerges, as the modal logic \ of this frame is well-known and a translation of the conditional sentences can be mechanically checked for validity; this allows also for a quick proof of \-completeness of the satisfiability problem for these logics. A second approach employs the conditional version of Scott-Montague semantics, in the form of \-many possible worlds, endowed with neighborhoods populated by collections of cofinite subsets of \. This approach gives rise to weak conditional logics, as expected. The relative strength of the conditionals introduced is compared to KLM logics and other conditional logics in the literature. (shrink)

Inheritance diagrams are directed acyclic graphs with two types of connections between nodes: x → y and x ↛ y . Given a diagram D, one can ask the formal question of “is there a valid path between node x and node y?” Depending on the existence of a valid path we can answer the question “x is a y” or “x is not a y”. The answer to the above question is determined through a complex inductive algorithm on paths (...) between arbitrary pairs of points in the graph. This paper aims to simplify and interpret such diagrams and their algorithms. We approach the area on two fronts. Suggest reactive arrows to simplify the algorithms for the winning paths. We give a conceptual analysis of inheritance diagrams, and compare our analysis to the “small” and “big sets” of preferential and related reasoning. In our analysis, we consider nodes as information sources and truth values, direct links as information, and valid paths as information channels and comparisons of truth values. This results in an upward chaining, split validity, off-path preclusion inheritance formalism of a particularly simple type. We show that the small and big sets of preferential reasoning have to be relativized if we want them to conform to inheritance theory, resulting in a more cautious approach, perhaps closer to actual human reasoning. We will also interpret inheritance diagrams as theories of prototypical reasoning, based on two distances: set difference, and information difference. We will see that some of the major distinctions between inheritance formalisms are consequences of deeper and more general problems of treating conflicting information. It is easily seen that inheritance diagrams can also be analysed in terms of reactive diagrams - as can all argumentation systems. AMS Classification: 68T27, 68T30. (shrink)