This paper presents and discusses several methods for reasoning from inconsistent knowledge bases. A so-called argued consequence relation, taking into account the existence of consistent arguments in favour of a conclusion and the absence of consistent arguments in favour of its contrary, is particularly investigated. Flat knowledge bases, i.e., without any priority between their elements, are studied under different inconsistency-tolerant consequence relations, namely the so-called argumentative, free, universal, existential, cardinality-based, and paraconsistent consequence relations. The syntax-sensitivity of these consequence relations is (...) studied. A companion paper is devoted to the case where priorities exist between the pieces of information in the knowledge base. (shrink)

It is shown that the consequence relations defined from theRescher-Manor Mechanism are all inconsistency-adaptive logics combined with a specific interpretation schema for the premises. Each of the adaptive logics isobtained by applying a suitable adaptive strategy to the paraconsistent logicCLuN.This result provides all those consequence relations with a proof theory and with a static semantics.

This paper describes the adaptive logic of compatibility and its dynamic proof theory. The results derive from insights in inconsistency-adaptive logic, but are themselves very simple and philosophically unobjectionable. In the absence of a positive test, dynamic proof theories lead, in the long run, to correct results and, in the short run, sometimes to final decisions but always to sensible estimates. The paper contains a new and natural kind of semantics for S5from which it follows that a specific subset of (...) the standard worlds-models is characteristic for S5. (shrink)

In an adaptive logic APL, based on a (monotonic) non-standardlogic PL the consequences of can be defined in terms ofa selection of the PL-models of . An important property ofthe adaptive logics ACLuN1, ACLuN2, ACLuNs1, andACLuNs2 logics is proved: whenever a model is not selected, this isjustified in terms of a selected model (Strong Reassurance). Theproperty fails for Priest's LP m because its way of measuring thedegree of abnormality of a model is incoherent – correcting thisdelivers the property.

In [BAT 00b], the flat Rescher–Manor consequence relations — the Free, Strong, Argued, C-Based, andWeak consequence relation—were shown to be characterized by inconsistency-adaptive logics defined from the paraconsistent logic CLuN. This provided these consequence relations with a dynamic proof theory. In the present paper we show that the detour via an inconsistency-adaptive logic is not necessary. We present a direct dynamic proof theory, formulated in the language of Classical Logic, and prove its adequacy. The present paper contains the first direct (...) dynamic proof theory for consequence relations that are characterized by an adaptive logic. (shrink)

This paper spells out a dynamic proof format for the pure logic of relevant implication. (A proof is dynamic if a formula derived at some stage need not be derived at a later stage.) The paper illustrates three interesting points. (i) A set of properties that characterizes an inference relation on the (very natural) dynamic proof interpretation, need not characterize the same inference relation (or even any inference relation) on the usual settheoretical interpretation. (ii) A proof format may display an (...) internal dynamics (defeasible conclusions) in the absence of an external dynamics (non-monotonicity). (iii) A monotonic logic may have a non-monotonic characterization. (shrink)

Scientific explanations arc subject to the occurrence of inconsistencies. To rule them out in many cases demands the construction of new theories. As the examples of complementary explanations show, that may take a while. Furthermore, even if possible in principle, it is not always reasonable to eliminate inconsistencies immediately, e.g., by bringing in a more sophisticated formal language. After all, under some circumstances a provisional, not fully coherent explanation may be better than none. In any case, we need a logically (...) controlled approach to such inconsistencies. Modern logic provides the tools which are necessary to solve this task. We will mention two alternative approaches. (shrink)

The main object of this paper is to provide the logical machinery needed for a viable basis for talking of the ‘consequences’, the ‘content’, or of ‘equivalences’ between inconsistent sets of premisses.With reference to its maximal consistent subsets (m.c.s.), two kinds of ‘consequences’ of a propositional set S are defined. A proposition P is a weak consequence (W-consequence) of S if it is a logical consequence of at least one m.c.s. of S, and P is an inevitable consequence (I-consequence) of (...) S if it is a logical consequence of all the m.c.s. of S. The set of W-consequences of a set S it determines (up to logical equivalence) its m.c.s. (This enables us to define a normal form for every set such that any two sets having the same W-consequences have the same normal form.) The W-consequences and I-consequences will not do to define the ‘content’ of a set S. The first is too broad, may include propositions mutually inconsistent, the second is too narrow. A via media between these concepts is accordingly defined: P is a P-consequence of S, where P is some preference criterion yielding some of the m.c.s. of S as preferred to others, and P is a consequence of all of the P-preferred m.c.s. of S. The bulk of the paper is devoted to discussion of various preference criteria, and also surveys the application of this machinery in diverse contexts - for example, in connection with the processing of mutually inconsistent reports. (shrink)

The paper explains how a paraconsistent logician can appropriate all classical reasoning. This is to take consistency as a default assumption, and hence to work within those models of the theory at hand which are minimally inconsistent. The paper spells out the formal application of this strategy to one paraconsistent logic, first-order LP. (See, Ch. 5 of: G. Priest, In Contradiction, Nijhoff, 1987.) The result is a strong non-monotonic paraconsistent logic agreeing with classical logic in consistent situations. It is shown (...) that the logical closure of a theory under this logic is trivial only if its closure under LP is trivial. (shrink)

S. Jakowski introduced the discussive prepositional calculus D 2as a basis for a logic which could be used as underlying logic of inconsistent but nontrivial theories (see, for example, N. C. A. da Costa and L. Dubikajtis, On Jakowski's discussive logic, in Non-Classical Logic, Model Theory and Computability, A. I. Arruda, N. C. A da Costa and R. Chuaqui edts., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977, 37–56). D 2has afterwards been extended to a first-order predicate calculus and to a higher-order logic (cf. the (...) quoted paper). In this paper we present a natural version of D 2, in the sense of Jakowski and Gentzen; as a consequence, we suggest a new formulation of the discussive predicate calculus (with equality). A semantics for the new calculus is also presented. (shrink)

S. Jaśkowski introduced the discussive propositional calculus D₂ as a basis for a logic which could be used as underlying logic of inconsistent but nontrivial theories. D₂ has afterwards been extended to a first-order predicate calculus and to a higher-order logic. In this paper we present a natural version of D₂, in the sense of Jaśkowski and Gentzen; as a consequence, we suggest a new formulation of the discussive predicate calculus. A semantics for the new calculus is also presented.

This long-awaited book replaces Hughes and Cresswell's two classic studies of modal logic: _An Introduction to Modal Logic_ and _A Companion to Modal Logic_. _A New Introduction to Modal Logic_ is an entirely new work, completely re-written by the authors. They have incorporated all the new developments that have taken place since 1968 in both modal propositional logic and modal predicate logic, without sacrificing tha clarity of exposition and approachability that were essential features of their earlier works. The book takes (...) readers from the most basic systems of modal propositional logic right up to systems of modal predicate with identity. It covers both technical developments such as completeness and incompleteness, and finite and infinite models, and their philosophical applications, especially in the area of modal predicate logic. (shrink)