Search

Our goal is to develop a syntactical apparatus for propositional logics in which the accepted and rejected propositions have the same status and obeying treated in the same way. The suggested approach is based on the ideas of Łukasiewicz used for the classical logic and in addition, it includes the use of multiple conclusion rules. More precisely, a consequence relation is defined on a set of statements of forms "proposition A is accepted" and "proposition A is rejected", where A is a proposition,—a unified consequence relation. Accordingly, the rules defining a unified consequence relation,—the unified rules, have statements as premises and as conclusions. A special attention is paid to the logics in which each proposition is either accepted or rejected. If we express this property via unified rules and add them to a unified deductive system, such a unified deductive system defines a reversible unified consequence: a statement "proposition B is accepted" is derived from the statement "proposition A is accepted" if and only if a statement "proposition A is rejected" is derived from the statement "proposition B is rejected". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As consistency is such an important topic in logic, researchers have for a long time investigated how to attain and maintain it. But consistency can also be studied from the point of view of its opposite, inconsistency. The problem with inconsistency in classical logic is that by the principle of explosion a single inconsistency leads to triviality. Paraconsistent logics were introduced to get around this problem by defining logics in such a way that the explosion principle does not apply to them. Another approach stays in the classical framework and evaluates the amount of inconsistency in a set of formulas. The great bulk of this work has been done for propositional logic and presents many interesting issues about inconsistency. A previous paper introduced the concept of generalized propositional logic (GPL) to provide a uniform method for measuring inconsistency in logics that allow the application of unary operator pairs, such as for modality, time, and space, to propositional logic formulas. The universality of GPL manifests itself in the fact that such an operator pair is evaluated in a uniform manner across all such logics. The difference lies solely in the choice of a frame for each logic. But some logics also contain nonunary operators. For example, temporal logics typically contain a binary Until operator. The purpose of this paper is to show how to extend generalized propositional logic to extended generalized propositional logic (EGPL) by adding nonunary operator pairs and measure inconsistency in such logics. The universality of EGPL manifests itself in the fact that once the evaluation of the nonunary operators is given, it carries over to all such logics. For example, the temporal Until operator becomes applicable to modal logic. Furthermore, while relative inconsistency measures were previously considered for GPL, they are now extended to EGPL and a new approach removes an undesirable feature from the previous version. Also, this paper provides results about various properties of the new inconsistency measures. Many examples and explanations are given to illustrate the issues involving this extension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Propositional logic, with the aid of SAT solvers, has become capable of solving a range of important and complicated problems. Expanding this range, to contain additional varieties of problems, is subject to the complexity resulting from encoding counting constraints in conjunctive normal form (CNF). Due to the limitation of the expressive power of propositional logic, generally, such an encoding increases the numbers of variables and clauses excessively. This work eliminates the indicated drawback by interpolating constraint symbols and the set of natural numbers N into the alphabet of propositional logic and adjusting the underlying language accordingly. In the extended logic counting constraints are naturally formulated, while many important aspects, such as Boolean nature and the soundness and completeness theorems, are kept preserved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consistency is one of the key concepts of logic; logicians have put a great deal of effort into proving the consistency of many logics. Understanding what causes inconsistency is also important; some logicians have developed paraconsistent logics that, unlike classical logics, allow some contradictions without making all formulas provable. Another direction of research studies inconsistency by measuring the amount of inconsistency of sets of formulas. While the initial attempt in 1978 was too ambitious in trying to do this for first-order logic, this research got a substantial boost when an inconsistency measure was proposed for propositional logic in 2002. Since then, researchers in logic and artificial intelligence (AI systems need the capability to deal with inconsistency) have made many interesting proposals and found related issues. Almost all of this work has been done for propositional logic. The purpose of this paper is to extend inconsistency measures to logics that also contain operators, such as modal operators. We use the terminology "generalized propositional logic" for such logics. We show how to extend propositional inconsistency measures to sets of formulas in any such generalized propositional logic. Examples are used to illustrate how various modal operators, including spatial and tense operators, fit into this framework. We also show that the addition of operators leads to a weak type of inconsistency. In all cases, the calculations for several inconsistency measures are given. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on the notational principles of C. S. Peirce's graphical logic, Pietarinen has tried to develop a propositional logic unfolding in the medium of sound. Apart from its intrinsic interest, this project serves as a concrete test of logic's range. However, I argue that Pietarinen's inaugural proposal, while promising, has an important shortcoming, since it cannot portray double-negation without thereby portraying a contradiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given a 4-tuple of Boolean variables ( a, b, c, d), logical proportions are modeled by a pair of equivalences relating similarity indicators ( $${a \wedge b}$$ a ∧ b and $${\overline{a} \wedge \overline{b}}$$ a ¯ ∧ b ¯ ), or dissimilarity indicators ( $${a \wedge \overline{b}}$$ a ∧ b ¯ and $${\overline{a} \wedge b}$$ a ¯ ∧ b ) pertaining to the pair ( a, b), to the ones associated with the pair ( c, d). There are 120 semantically distinct logical proportions. One of them models the analogical proportion which corresponds to a statement of the form “ a is to b as c is to d”. The paper inventories the whole set of logical proportions by dividing it into five subfamilies according to what they express, and then identifies the proportions that satisfy noticeable properties such as full identity (the pair of equivalences defining the proportion hold as true for the 4-tuple ( a, a, a, a)), symmetry (if the proportion holds for ( a, b, c, d), it also holds for ( c, d, a, b)), or code independency (if the proportion holds for ( a, b, c, d), it also holds for their negations $${{(\overline{a},\overline{b}, \overline{c}, \overline{d})}}$$ ( a ¯ , b ¯ , c ¯ , d ¯ ) ). It appears that only four proportions (including analogical proportion) are homogeneous in the sense that they use only one type of indicator (either similarity or dissimilarity) in their definition. Due to their specific patterns, they have a particular cognitive appeal, and as such are studied in greater details. Finally, the paper provides a discussion of the other existing works on analogical proportions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problem of data privacy is to verify that confidential information stored in an information system is not provided to unauthorized users and, therefore, personal and other sensitive data remain private. One way to guarantee this is to distort a knowledge base such that it does not reveal sensitive information. In the present paper we will give a universal definition of the problem of knowledge base distortion. It is universal in the sense that is independent of any particular knowledge representation formalism. We will then present a basic and general algorithm for knowledge base distortion to guarantee data privacy. This algorithm provides us with upper bounds for the complexity of the distortion problem. Moreover, we examine heuristics to improve its average performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]