Switch to: Citations

References in:

The Talmudic Logic Project, Ongoing Since 2008

Dov M. Gabbay, Uri Schild & Esther David

Logica Universalis 13 (4):425-442 (2019)

Add references

You must login to add references.

Contrary to time conditionals in Talmudic logic.M. Abraham, D. M. Gabbay & U. Schild - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (2):145-179.details We consider conditionals of the form A ⇒ B where A depends on the future and B on the present and past. We examine models for such conditional arising in Talmudic legal cases. We call such conditionals contrary to time conditionals.Three main aspects will be investigated: Inverse causality from future to past, where a future condition can influence a legal event in the past (this is a man made causality).Comparison with similar features in modern law.New types of temporal logics arising (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 3 citations
Future determination of entities in Talmudic public announcement logic.M. Abraham, I. Belfer, D. M. Gabbay & U. Schild - 2013 - Journal of Applied Logic 11 (1):63-90.details Download Export citation Bookmark 3 citations
Analysis of the Talmudic Argumentum A Fortiori Inference Rule (Kal Vachomer) using Matrix Abduction.M. Abraham, Dov M. Gabbay & U. Schild - 2009 - Studia Logica 92 (3):281-364.details 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 a i,j =?. The method allows us to decide whether to declare a i,j = 0 or a i,j = 1 or a i,j =? (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 9 citations
Obligations and prohibitions in Talmudic deontic logic.M. Abraham, D. M. Gabbay & U. Schild - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2-3):117-148.details This paper examines the deontic logic of the Talmud. We shall find, by looking at examples, that at first approximation we need deontic logic with several connectives: O T A Talmudic obligation F T A Talmudic prohibition F D A Standard deontic prohibition O D A Standard deontic obligation. In classical logic one would have expected that deontic obligation O D is definable by $O_DA \equiv F_D\neg A$ and that O T and F T are connected by $O_TA \equiv F_T\neg (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 9 citations
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Georges Rey - 2003details Download Export citation Bookmark 3 citations
Logical Analysis of the Talmudic Rules of General and Specific (Klalim-u-Pratim).Michael Abraham, Dov M. Gabbay, Gabriel Hazut, Yosef E. Maruvka & Uri Schild - 2011 - History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (1):47-62.details This article deals with a set-theoretic interpretation of the Talmudic rules of General and Specific, known as Klal and Prat (KP), Prat and Klal (PK), Klal and Prat and Klal (KPK) and Prat and Klal and Prat (PKP). Download Export citation Bookmark 1 citation

1