Measuring Inconsistency in Some Logics with Modal Operators

Studia Logica 109 (3):581-605 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The first mention of the concept of an inconsistency measure for sets of formulas in first-order logic was given in 1978, but that paper presented only classifications for them. The first actual inconsistency measure with a numerical value was given in 2002 for sets of formulas in propositional logic. Since that time, researchers in logic and AI have developed a substantial theory of inconsistency measures. While this is an interesting topic from the point of view of logic, an important motivation for this work is also that some intelligent systems may encounter inconsistencies in their operation. This research deals primarily with propositional knowledge bases, that is, finite sets of propositional logic formulas. The goal of this paper is to extend the concept of inconsistency measure in a formal way to sets of formulas with the modal operators “necessarily” and “possibly” applied to propositional logic formulas. We use frames for the semantics, but in a way that is different from the way that frames are commonly used in modal logics, in order to facilitate measuring inconsistency. As a set of formulas may have different inconsistency measures for different frames, we define the concept of a standard frame that can be used for all finite sets of formulas in the language. We do this for two languages. The first language, AMPL, contains formulas where a prefix of operators is applied to a propositional logic formula. The second language, CMPL, adds connectives that can be applied to AMPL formulas in a limited way. We show how to extend propositional logic inconsistency measures to such sets of formulas. Finally, we define a new concept, weak inconsistency measure, and show how to compute it.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Term-modal logics.Melvin Fitting, Lars Thalmann & Andrei Voronkov - 2001 - Studia Logica 69 (1):133-169.
Models for anodic and cathodic multimodalities.Juliana Bueno-Soler - 2012 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 20 (2):458-476.
Independent propositional modal logics.S. K. Thomason - 1980 - Studia Logica 39 (2-3):143 - 144.
Autoreferential semantics for many-valued modal logics.Zoran Majkic - 2008 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 18 (1):79-125.
Arrow logic and infinite counting.Ágnes Kurucz - 2000 - Studia Logica 65 (2):199-222.
Modal logic S4 as a paraconsistent logic with a topological semantics.Marcelo E. Coniglio & Leonardo Prieto-Sanabria - 2017 - In Caleiro Carlos, Dionisio Francisco, Gouveia Paula, Mateus Paulo & Rasga João (eds.), Logic and Computation: Essays in Honour of Amilcar Sernadas. College Publications. pp. 171-196.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-08-29

Downloads
16 (#880,136)

6 months
6 (#522,885)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Fractional-Valued Modal Logic.Mario Piazza, Gabriele Pulcini & Matteo Tesi - 2023 - Review of Symbolic Logic 16 (4):1033-1052.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The logic of paradox.Graham Priest - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):219 - 241.
Relative inconsistency measures.Philippe Besnard & John Grant - 2020 - Artificial Intelligence 280 (C):103231.
Measuring inconsistency.Kevin Knight - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (1):77-98.
Classifications for inconsistent theories.John Grant - 1978 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 19 (3):435-444.

Add more references