Two algebraic structures, the contrapositionally complemented Heyting algebra (ccHa) and the contrapositionally |$\vee $| complemented Heyting algebra (c|$\vee $|cHa), are studied. The salient feature of these algebras is that there are two negations, one intuitionistic and another minimal in nature, along with a condition connecting the two operators. Properties of these algebras are discussed, examples are given and comparisons are made with relevant algebras. Intuitionistic Logic with Minimal Negation (ILM) corresponding to ccHas and its extension |${\textrm {ILM}}$|-|${\vee }$| for c|$\vee (...) $|cHas are then investigated. Besides its relations with intuitionistic and minimal logics, ILM is observed to be related to Peirce’s logic and Vakarelov’s logic MIN. With a focus on properties of the two negations, relational semantics for ILM and |${\textrm {ILM}}$|-|${\vee }$| are obtained with respect to four classes of frames, and inter-translations between the classes preserving truth and validity are provided. ILM and |${\textrm {ILM}}$|-|${\vee }$| are shown to have the finite model property with respect to these classes of frames and proved to be decidable. Extracting features of the two negations in the algebras, a further investigation is made, following logical studies of negations that define the operators independently of the binary operator of implication. Using Dunn’s logical framework for the purpose, two logics |$K_{im}$| and |$K_{im-{\vee }}$| are discussed, where the language does not include implication. The |$K_{im}$|-algebras are reducts of ccHas and are different from relevant algebraic structures having two negations. The negations in the |$K_{im}$|-algebras and |$K_{im-{\vee }}$|-algebras are shown to occupy distinct positions in an enhanced form of Dunn’s kite of negations. Relational semantics for |$K_{im}$| and |$K_{im-{\vee }}$| is provided by a class of frames that are based on Dunn’s compatibility frames. It is observed that this class coincides with one of the four classes giving the relational semantics for ILM and |${\textrm {ILM}}$|-|${\vee }$|⁠. (shrink)

A structural theorem for Kleene algebras is proved, showing that an element of a Kleene algebra can be looked upon as an ordered pair of sets, and that negation with the Kleene property is describable by the set-theoretic complement. The propositional logic \ of Kleene algebras is shown to be sound and complete with respect to a 3-valued and a rough set semantics. It is also established that Kleene negation can be considered as a modal operator, due to a perp (...) semantics of \. Moreover, another representation of Kleene algebras is obtained in the class of complex algebras of compatibility frames. One concludes with the observation that \ can be imparted semantics from different perspectives. (shrink)

Rough Sets were introduced by Z. Pawlak in the year 1982 with the intention to address knowledge representation and data processing from the angle of computation and decision making. The main idea...

In A. Kumar, & M. Banerjee [(2012). Definable and rough sets in covering-based approximation spaces. In T. Li. (eds.), Rough sets and knowledge technology (pp. 488–495). Springer-Verlag], A. Kumar, & M. Banerjee [(2015). Algebras of definable and rough sets in quasi order-based approximation spaces. Fundamenta Informaticae, 141(1), 37–55], authors proposed a pair of lower and upper approximation operators based on granules generated by quasiorders. This work is an extension of algebraic results presented therein. A characterisation has been presented for those (...) quasiorder-generated covering-based approximation spaces whose corresponding collections of definable and rough sets form Stone algebras. The notion of rough lattice was proposed in A. Kumar, & M. Banerjee [(2015). Algebras of definable and rough sets in quasi order-based approximation spaces. Fundamenta Informaticae, 141(1), 37–55], A. Kumar [(2020). A Study of Algebras and Logics of Rough Sets Based on Classical and Generalized Approximation Spaces. In Transactions on Rough Sets XXII, LNCS (Vol. 12485, pp. 123–251). Springer]. Some special rough lattices are introduced in this work, viz. rough Stone algebra, ∼1-complemented and ∼2-complemented rough lattices. Representations of these algebras in terms of rough sets are obtained. Moreover, logics for these algebras are shown to be sound and complete with respect to rough set semantics. (shrink)

Possibilistic logic and modal logic are knowledge representation frameworks sharing some common features, such as the duality between possibility and necessity, and the decomposability of necessity for conjunctions, as well as some obvious differences since possibility theory is graded. At the semantic level, possibilistic logic relies on possibility distributions and modal logic on accessibility relations. In the last 30 years, there have been a series of attempts for bridging the two frameworks in one way or another. In this paper, we (...) compare the relational semantics of epistemic logics with simpler possibilistic semantics of a fragment of such logics that only uses modal formulas of depth 1. This minimal epistemic logic handles both all-or-nothing beliefs and explicitly ignored facts. We also contrast epistemic logic with the S5-based rough set logic. Finally, this paper presents extensions of generalized possibilistic logic with objective and non-nested multimodal formulas, in the style of modal logics KD45 and S5. (shrink)

The notion of a context in formal concept analysis and that of an approximation space in rough set theory are unified in this study to define a Kripke context. For any context (G,M,I), a relation on the set G of objects and a relation on the set M of properties are included, giving a structure of the form ((G,R), (M,S), I). A Kripke context gives rise to complex algebras based on the collections of protoconcepts and semiconcepts of the underlying context. (...) On abstraction, double Boolean algebras (dBas) with operators and topological dBas are defined. Representation results for these algebras are established in terms of the complex algebras of an appropriate Kripke context. As a natural next step, logics corresponding to classes of these algebras are formulated. A sequent calculus is proposed for contextual dBas, modal extensions of which give logics for contextual dBas with operators and topological contextual dBas. The representation theorems for the algebras result in a protoconcept-based semantics for these logics. (shrink)

The theory of rough sets starts with the notion of an approximation space , which is a pair ( U , R ), U being the domain of discourse, and R an equivalence relation on U . R is taken to represent the knowledge base of an agent, and the induced partition reflects a granularity of U that is the result of a lack of complete information about the objects in U . The focus then is on approximations of concepts (...) on the domain, in the context of the granularity. The present article studies the theory in the situation where information is obtained from different sources. The notion of approximation space is extended to define a multiple-source approximation system with distributed knowledge base , which is a tuple , where N is a set of sources and P ranges over all finite subsets of N . Each R P is an equivalence relation on U satisfying some additional conditions, representing the knowledge base of the group P of sources. Thus each finite group of sources and hence individual source perceives the same domain differently (depending on what information the group/individual source has about the domain), and the same concept may then have approximations that differ with the groups. In order to express the notions and properties related with rough set theory in this multiple-source situation, a quantified modal logic LMSAS D is proposed. In LMSAS D , quantification ranges over modalities, making it different from modal predicate logic and modal logic with propositional quantifiers. Some fragments of LMSAS D are discussed and it is shown that the modal system KTB is embedded in LMSAS D . The epistemic logic is also embedded in LMSAS D , and cannot replace the latter to serve our purpose. The relationship of LMSAS D with first and second-order logics is presented. Issues of expressibility, axiomatization and decidability are addressed. (shrink)