Temporalized Epistemic Default Logic

W. van der Hoek, J.J. Meyer, J. Treur

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The nonmonotonic logic Epistemic Default Logic (EDL) [Meyer and van der Hoek, 1993] is based on the metaphore of a meta-level architecture. It has already been established [Meyer and van der Hoek, 1993] how upward reflection can be formalized by a nonmonotonic entailment based on epistemic states, and the meta-level process by a (monotonic) epistemic logic. The meta-level reasoning at a given state can be viewed as the part of the reasoning pattern where it is determined what the candidates are for default assumptions to be made, depending on the knowledge and ignorance at that state. The outcome at the meta-level concerns default conclusions of the form Pφ, where φ is an object-level formula. In EDL, default conclusions are kept separate from the object level knowledge (they remain at the meta-level), by means of this explicit default operator P. If one wants to draw further conclusions from them using object level knowledge this should be done at the meta-level. Compared to a meta-level architecture, what is still missing in EDL is the step where the default assumptions are actually made, i.e., where such formulas φ are added to the object level knowledge. Here we actually ‘jump (down) to conclusions’. This is what should be achieved by the downward reflection step. In the current paper we introduce a formalization of this downward reflection step. Thus a formalization, called TED L, is obtained of the reasoning pattern as a whole.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationDynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes
EditorsD. Gabbay
PublisherKluwer Academic
Pages177-194
ISBN (Electronic)978-94-017-1743-4
ISBN (Print)978-90-481-5903-1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2001

Publication series

NameSeries in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems
Volume6

Fingerprint

logic
transferred electron devices
operators

Cite this

van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J. J., & Treur, J. (2001). Temporalized Epistemic Default Logic. In D. Gabbay (Ed.), Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes (pp. 177-194). (Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems; Vol. 6). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_10
van der Hoek, W. ; Meyer, J.J. ; Treur, J. / Temporalized Epistemic Default Logic. Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes. editor / D. Gabbay. Kluwer Academic, 2001. pp. 177-194 (Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems).
@inbook{9dc5799e70b648deaebbc9685372a8e1,
title = "Temporalized Epistemic Default Logic",
abstract = "The nonmonotonic logic Epistemic Default Logic (EDL) [Meyer and van der Hoek, 1993] is based on the metaphore of a meta-level architecture. It has already been established [Meyer and van der Hoek, 1993] how upward reflection can be formalized by a nonmonotonic entailment based on epistemic states, and the meta-level process by a (monotonic) epistemic logic. The meta-level reasoning at a given state can be viewed as the part of the reasoning pattern where it is determined what the candidates are for default assumptions to be made, depending on the knowledge and ignorance at that state. The outcome at the meta-level concerns default conclusions of the form Pφ, where φ is an object-level formula. In EDL, default conclusions are kept separate from the object level knowledge (they remain at the meta-level), by means of this explicit default operator P. If one wants to draw further conclusions from them using object level knowledge this should be done at the meta-level. Compared to a meta-level architecture, what is still missing in EDL is the step where the default assumptions are actually made, i.e., where such formulas φ are added to the object level knowledge. Here we actually ‘jump (down) to conclusions’. This is what should be achieved by the downward reflection step. In the current paper we introduce a formalization of this downward reflection step. Thus a formalization, called TED L, is obtained of the reasoning pattern as a whole.",
author = "{van der Hoek}, W. and J.J. Meyer and J. Treur",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_10",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-90-481-5903-1",
series = "Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems",
publisher = "Kluwer Academic",
pages = "177--194",
editor = "D. Gabbay",
booktitle = "Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes",

}

van der Hoek, W, Meyer, JJ & Treur, J 2001, Temporalized Epistemic Default Logic. in D Gabbay (ed.), Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes. Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol. 6, Kluwer Academic, pp. 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_10

Temporalized Epistemic Default Logic. / van der Hoek, W.; Meyer, J.J.; Treur, J.

Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes. ed. / D. Gabbay. Kluwer Academic, 2001. p. 177-194 (Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems; Vol. 6).

Research output: Chapter in Book / Report / Conference proceedingChapterAcademicpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Temporalized Epistemic Default Logic

AU - van der Hoek, W.

AU - Meyer, J.J.

AU - Treur, J.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - The nonmonotonic logic Epistemic Default Logic (EDL) [Meyer and van der Hoek, 1993] is based on the metaphore of a meta-level architecture. It has already been established [Meyer and van der Hoek, 1993] how upward reflection can be formalized by a nonmonotonic entailment based on epistemic states, and the meta-level process by a (monotonic) epistemic logic. The meta-level reasoning at a given state can be viewed as the part of the reasoning pattern where it is determined what the candidates are for default assumptions to be made, depending on the knowledge and ignorance at that state. The outcome at the meta-level concerns default conclusions of the form Pφ, where φ is an object-level formula. In EDL, default conclusions are kept separate from the object level knowledge (they remain at the meta-level), by means of this explicit default operator P. If one wants to draw further conclusions from them using object level knowledge this should be done at the meta-level. Compared to a meta-level architecture, what is still missing in EDL is the step where the default assumptions are actually made, i.e., where such formulas φ are added to the object level knowledge. Here we actually ‘jump (down) to conclusions’. This is what should be achieved by the downward reflection step. In the current paper we introduce a formalization of this downward reflection step. Thus a formalization, called TED L, is obtained of the reasoning pattern as a whole.

AB - The nonmonotonic logic Epistemic Default Logic (EDL) [Meyer and van der Hoek, 1993] is based on the metaphore of a meta-level architecture. It has already been established [Meyer and van der Hoek, 1993] how upward reflection can be formalized by a nonmonotonic entailment based on epistemic states, and the meta-level process by a (monotonic) epistemic logic. The meta-level reasoning at a given state can be viewed as the part of the reasoning pattern where it is determined what the candidates are for default assumptions to be made, depending on the knowledge and ignorance at that state. The outcome at the meta-level concerns default conclusions of the form Pφ, where φ is an object-level formula. In EDL, default conclusions are kept separate from the object level knowledge (they remain at the meta-level), by means of this explicit default operator P. If one wants to draw further conclusions from them using object level knowledge this should be done at the meta-level. Compared to a meta-level architecture, what is still missing in EDL is the step where the default assumptions are actually made, i.e., where such formulas φ are added to the object level knowledge. Here we actually ‘jump (down) to conclusions’. This is what should be achieved by the downward reflection step. In the current paper we introduce a formalization of this downward reflection step. Thus a formalization, called TED L, is obtained of the reasoning pattern as a whole.

U2 - 10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_10

DO - 10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_10

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-90-481-5903-1

T3 - Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems

SP - 177

EP - 194

BT - Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes

A2 - Gabbay, D.

PB - Kluwer Academic

ER -

van der Hoek W, Meyer JJ, Treur J. Temporalized Epistemic Default Logic. In Gabbay D, editor, Dynamics and Management of Reasoning Processes. Kluwer Academic. 2001. p. 177-194. (Series in Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1743-4_10