Download Adaptive Logics and Dynamic Proofs. Mastering the Dynamics by Diderik Batens PDF

By Diderik Batens

Show description

Read or Download Adaptive Logics and Dynamic Proofs. Mastering the Dynamics of Reasoning, with Special Attention to Handling Inconsistency PDF

Best logic books

Aristotle's Earlier Logic (Studies in Logic, Volume 53)

The 1st version of Aristotle's prior common sense attracted a few beneficial recognition. In his assessment for the magazine Argumentation, David Hitchcock writes, "The publication is a treasure trove of subtle logical explorations of the tips in Aristotle's early logical writings, . .. involved with quite a lot of modern formal paintings .

Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation: Proceedings of LOPSTR 91, International Workshop on Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation, University of Manchester, 4–5 July 1991

Good judgment programming synthesis and transformation are equipment of deriving good judgment courses from their requisites and, the place helpful, generating substitute yet similar kinds of a given application. The thoughts all in favour of synthesis and transformation are very important as they enable the systematic development of right and effective courses and feature the capability to reinforce present tools of software program construction.

Extra info for Adaptive Logics and Dynamic Proofs. Mastering the Dynamics of Reasoning, with Special Attention to Handling Inconsistency

Sample text

If a theory T was intended (and believed) to be consistent and hence was given CL as its underlying logic, but turns out inconsistent, then replacing CL by monotonic paraconsistent logics offers a theory that is much weaker than ‘what T was intended to be’. Consider the premise set {¬p ∨ q, p, r ∨ s, ¬r, ¬p}. Obviously, this is a toy example. My aim is to illustrate the point, not to offer a historical case study. As the premise set is inconsistent, it requires a formula to behave inconsistently, viz.

4 is proved by showing (i) that every axiom is a valid formula, (ii) that MP holds true in every model (if M A and M A ⊃ B, then M B), and (iii) that R∀ and R∃ hold for valid formulas (for example, for R∀, if A ⊃ B(β) and β does not occur in either A or B(α), then A ⊃ ∀αB(α)). This is safely left to the reader. In preparation of the proof of the strong completeness of CL with respect to its semantics, we need some definitions and lemmas. As I have to consider several languages and logics, the definitions are a trifle more complex than the usual ones.

Cn such that Γ CLuN A ∨ (∃(C1 ∧ ¬C1 ) ∨ . . ∨ ∃(Cn ∧ ¬Cn )). (Derivability Adjustment Theorem)13 Proof outline. ⇒ Suppose that Γ CL A. 1), there are B1 , . . , Bm ∈ Γ for which B1 , . . , Bm CL A, whence CL B1 ⊃ (. . ⊃ (Bm ⊃ A) . 2). Let X abbreviate (B1 ⊃ (. . ⊃ (Bm ⊃ A) . )). Suppose that a CLuN-model M = D, v falsifies X∨ {∃(C ∧ ¬C) | C ∈ sub(X)} and hence falsifies all members of {∃(C ∧ ¬C) | C ∈ sub(X)}. Let M = D, v be a CL-model, with D and v as for M . I show, by an induction on the complexity of formulas, that M and M verify the same closed subformulas of X and the same instances of open subformulas of X.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.60 of 5 – based on 46 votes