This paper presents a belief revision operator that considers time intervals for modelling norm change in the law. This approach relates techniques from belief revision formalisms and time intervals with temporalised rules for legal systems. Our goal is to formalise a temporalised belief base and corresponding timed derivation, together with a proper revision operator. This operator may remove rules when needed or adapt intervals of time when contradictory norms are added in the system. For the operator, both constructive definition and (...) an axiomatic characterisation by representation theorems are given. (shrink)

As lawmakers produce norms, the underlying normative system is affected showing the intrinsic dynamism of law. Through undertaken actions of legal change, the normative system is continuously modified. In a usual legislative practice, the time for an enacted legal provision to be in force may differ from that of its inclusion to the legal system, or from that in which it produces legal effects. Even more, some provisions can produce effects retroactively in time. In this article we study a simulation (...) of such process through the formalisation of a temporalised logical framework upon which a novel belief revision model tackles the dynamic nature of law. Represented through intervals, the temporalisation of sentences allows differentiating the temporal parameters of norms. In addition, a proposed revision operator allows assessing change to the legal system by including a new temporalised literal while preserving the time-based consistency. This can be achieved either by pushing out conflictive pieces of pre-existing norms or through the modification of intervals in which such norms can be either in force, or produce effects. Finally, the construction of the temporalised revision operator is axiomatically characterised and its rational behavior proved through a corresponding representation theorem. (shrink)

Modeling a complex phenomena such as the mind presents tremendous computational complexity challenges. Modeling field theory (MFT) addresses these challenges in a non-traditional way. The main idea behind MFT is to match levels of uncertainty of the model (also, a problem or some theory) with levels of uncertainty of the evaluation criterion used to identify that model. When a model becomes more certain, then the evaluation criterion is adjusted dynamically to match that change to the model. This process is called (...) the Dynamic Logic of Phenomena (DLP) for model construction and it mimics processes of the mind and natural evolution. This paper provides a formal description of DLP by specifying its syntax, semantics, and reasoning system. We also outline links between DLP and other logical approaches. Computational complexity issues that motivate this work are presented using an example of polynomial models. (shrink)

Modelling a complex phenomenon such as the mind presents tremendous computational complexity challenges. Modelling field theory addresses these challenges in a non-traditional way. The main idea behind MFT is to match levels of uncertainty of the model with levels of uncertainty of the evaluation criterion used to identify that model. When a model becomes more certain, then the evaluation criterion is adjusted dynamically to match that change to the model. This process is called the Dynamic Logic of Phenomena for model (...) construction and it mimics processes of the mind and natural evolution. This paper provides a formal description of DLP by specifying its syntax, semantics, and reasoning system. We also outline links between DLP and other logical approaches. Computational complexity issues that motivate this work are presented using an example of polynomial models. (shrink)

We present two defeasible logics of norm-propositions (statements about norms) that (i) consistently allow for the possibility of normative gaps and normative conflicts, and (ii) map each premise set to a sufficiently rich consequence set. In order to meet (i), we define the logic LNP, a conflict- and gap-tolerant logic of norm-propositions capable of formalizing both normative conflicts and normative gaps within the object language. Next, we strengthen LNP within the adaptive logic framework for non-monotonic reasoning in order to meet (...) (ii). This results in the adaptive logics LNPr and LNPm, which interpret a given set of premises in such a way that normative conflicts and normative gaps are avoided ‘whenever possible’. LNPr and LNPm are equipped with a preferential semantics and a dynamic proof theory. (shrink)