Skip to main content
Log in

Constrained Consequence

  • Published:
Logica Universalis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are various contexts in which it is not pertinent to generate and attend to all the classical consequences of a given premiss—or to trace all the premisses which classically entail a given consequence. Such contexts may involve limited resources of an agent or inferential engine, contextual relevance or irrelevance of certain consequences or premisses, modelling everyday human reasoning, the search for plausible abduced hypotheses or potential causes, etc. In this paper we propose and explicate one formal framework for a whole spectrum of consequence relations, flexible enough to be tailored for choices from a variety of contexts. We do so by investigating semantic constraints on classical entailment which give rise to a family of infra-classical logics with appealing properties. More specifically, our infra-classical reasoning demands (beyond \({\alpha\models\beta}\)) that Mod(β) does not run wild, but lies within the scope (whatever that may mean in some specific context) of Mod(α), and which can be described by a sentence \({\bullet\alpha}\) with \({\beta\models\bullet\alpha}\). Besides being infra-classical, the resulting logic is also non-monotonic and allows for non-trivial reasoning in the presence of inconsistencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson A.R., Belnap N.D.: Entailment: the logic of relevance and necessity, vol. 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson A.R., Belnap N.D., Dunn J.M.: Entailment: the logic of relevance and necessity, vol 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Arieli O., Avron A.: General patterns for nonmonotonic reasoning: from basic entailments to plausible relations. Log. J. IGPL. 8, 119–148 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker A.B.: Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of situation calculus. Artif. Intell. 49, 5–23 (1991)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Beall, J., Brady, R., Dunn, J.M., Hazen, A.P., Mares, E., Meyer, R.K., Priest, G., Restall, G., Ripley, D., Slaney, J., Sylvan, R.: On the ternary relation and conditionality. J. Philos. Log. Online 7 May (2011)

  6. Blackburn P., de Rijke M., Venema Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Blackburn P., van Benthem J., Wolter F.: Handbook of Modal Logic. Elsevier, North-Holland (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boutilier C.: Conditional logics of normality: a modal approach. Artif. Intell. 68(1), 87–154 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Britz, K., Heidema, J., Varzinczak, I.: Pertinent reasoning. In: 13th International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR) (2010)

  10. Britz, K., Meyer, T., Varzinczak, I.: Preferential reasoning for modal logic. In: Proceedings of Methods for Modalities (2011)

  11. Britz, K., Meyer, T., Varzinczak, I.: Semantic foundation for preferential description logics. In: Proceedings 24th Australasian Conference on AI (2011)

  12. Byrne R.M.J., Johnson-Laird P.N.: ‘If’ and the problems of conditional reasoning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13(7), 282–287 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cantwell J.: Conditionals in reasoning. Synthese 171, 47–75 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Castilho, M.A., Herzig, A., Varzinczak, I.: It depends on the context! A decidable logic of actions and plans based on a ternary dependence relation. In: 9th International Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR) (2002)

  15. Chellas B.: Modal logic: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Davey B.A., Priestley H.A.: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge Mathematical Textbooks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. de Nivelle H., Schmidt R., Hustadt U.: Resolution-based methods for modal logics. Log. J. IGPL. 8(3), 265–292 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Dickman, M.: Large Infinitary Languages. North-Holland (1975)

  19. Dunn J.M., Restall G.: Relevance logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Günthner, F (eds) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn, vol 6., pp. 1–128. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Duží M.: The paradox of inference and the non-triviality of analytic information. J. Philos. Log. 39, 473–510 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Gabbay, D.M., Kurucz, A., Zakharyaschev, M., Wolter, F.: Many-dimensional modal logics: theory and applications. In: Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 148. Elsevier, North-Holland (2003)

  22. Gabbay D.M., Schlechta K.: Roadmap for preferential logics. J. Appl. Non-Classical Log. 19(1), 43–95 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Galatos N., Jipsen P., Kowalski T., Ono H.: Residuated lattices: an algebraic glimpse at substructural logics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Elsevier, North-Holland (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goré R.: Tableau methods for modal and temporal logics. In: D’Agostino, M., Gabbay, D.M., Hähnle, R., Posegga, J (eds) Handbook of Tableau Methods, pp. 297–396. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Herzig A., Varzinczak I.: Metatheory of actions: beyond consistency. Artif. Intell. 171, 951–984 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson-Laird P.N.: How we reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson-Laird P.N., Byrne R.M.J., Girotto V.: The mental model theory of conditionals: a reply to Guy Politzer. Topoi. 28, 75–80 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Johnson-Laird P.N., Savary F.: Illusory inferences: a novel class of erroneous deductions. Cognition 71, 191–229 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Karp, C.: Languages with Expressions of Infinite Length. North-Holland (1964)

  30. Kraus S., Lehmann D., Magidor M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artif. Intell. 44, 167–207 (1990)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Lakemeyer G.: Relevance from an epistemic perspective. Artif. Intell. 97, 137–167 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Lang J., Liberatore P., Marquis P.: Propositional independence: formula-variable independence and forgetting. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 18, 391–443 (2003)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin, F.: Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In: Mellish, C. (ed) Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1985–1991. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (1995)

  34. Lin, F., Reiter R.: Forget it! In: Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Relevance, pp. 154–159. AAAI (1994)

  35. Makinson, D.: How to go nonmonotonic. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn, vol. 12, pp. 175–278. Springer, Berlin (2005)

  36. Meyer R.: Relevance is not reducible to modality. In: Anderson, A.R., Belnap, N.D (eds) Entailment the logic of relevance and necessity, vol. 1, pp. 462–471. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Meyer R.: Ternary relations and relevant semantics. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 127, 195–217 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Popkorn S.: First Steps in Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Priest G.: Paraconsistent logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Günthner, F. (eds) Handbook of Philosophical Logic 2nd edn, vol. 6., pp. 287–393. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Restall G.: Relevant and substructural logics. In: Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J (eds) Handbook of the History of Logic Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Century, vol. 7., pp. 289–398. Elsevier, North-Holland (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Robles G., Méndez J.: A Routley-Meyer semantics for relevant logics including TWR plus the disjunctive syllogism. Log. J. IGPL. 19(1), 18–32 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Thielscher M.: Ramification and causality. Artif. Intell. 89(1–2), 317–364 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Urquhart A.: Semantics for relevant logics. J. Symbol. Log. 37, 159–169 (1972)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang, D., Foo, N.: EPDL: A logic for causal reasoning. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 131–138. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Menlo Park (2001)

  45. Zhou Y., Zhang Y.: A logical study of partial entailment. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 40, 25–56 (2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Varzinczak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Britz, K., Heidema, J. & Varzinczak, I. Constrained Consequence. Log. Univers. 5, 327–350 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-011-0037-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-011-0037-2

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Keywords

Navigation