Skip to main content
Log in

Semantics for Dual Preferential Entailment

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We introduce and explore the notion of duality for entailment relations induced by preference orderings on states. We discuss the relationship between these preferential entailment relations from the perspectives of Boolean algebra, inference rules, and modal axiomatisation. Interpreting the preference relations as accessibility relations establishes modular Gödel-Löb logic as a suitable modal framework for rational preferential reasoning.

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. Amati, G., Carlucci, L., Gabbay, D., & Pirri, F. (1996). A structural property on modal frames characterizing default logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 4(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2002). Modal logic: Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science (Vol. 53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boolos, G. (1993). The logic of provability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boutilier, C. (1994). Conditional logics of normality: A modal approach. Artificial Intelligence, 68(1), 87–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Britz, K., Heidema, J., & Labuschagne, W. (2007). Entailment, duality, and the forms of reasoning. http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/research/publications/OUCS-2007-01.pdf.

  6. Crocco, G., & Lamarre, P. (1992). On the connections between nonmonotonic inference systems and conditional logics. In R. Nebel, C. Rich, & W. Swartout (Eds.), Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’92) (pp. 565–571). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, E. (1990). Representations of commonsense knowledge. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Delgrande, J., Schaub, T., Tourpits, H., & Wang, K. (2004). A classification and survey of preference handling approaches in non-monotonic reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 20(2), 308–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dickman, M. (1975). Large infinitary languages. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Freund, M., & Lehmann, D. (1994). Belief revision and rational inference. Tech. Rep. TR–94–16, Leibniz Center for Research in Computer Science, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. arXiv:cs/0204032v1 [cs.AI].

  11. Freund, M., Lehmann, D., & Morris, P. (1991). Rationality, transitivity and contraposition. Artificial Intelligence, 52(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gabbay, D., & Woods, J. (Eds.) (2007). The many valued and nonmonotonic turn in logic: Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 8). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Giordano, L., Gliozzi, V., Olivetti, N., & Pozzato, G. (2005). Analytic tableaux for KLM preferential and cumulative logics. In G. Sutcliffe & A. Voronkov (Eds.), LPAR 2005: Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 3835, pp. 666–681). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hansson, S., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2006). Preferences. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Center for Logic and Information, Stanford University, winter 2006 ed. plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2006/entries/preferences.

  15. Karp, C. (1964). Languages with expressions of infinite length. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1990). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44, 167–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1992). What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55, 1–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Makinson, D. (2005). How to go nonmonotonic. In Handbook of philosophical logic, 2nd ed. (Vol. 12, pp. 175–278). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Meier, B., & Robinson, M. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moinard, Y., & Rolland, R. (2002). Characterizations of preferential entailments. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 10(3), 245–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Segerberg, K. (1971). An essay in classical modal logic: Filosofiska Studier (Vol. 13). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shoham, Y. (1988). Reasoning about change: Time and causation from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu, Z. (2006). Similarity between preferential models. Theoretical Computer Science, 353, 26–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhu, Z., & Zhang, R. (2007). An algebraic characterization of equivalent preferential models. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 72(3), 803–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katarina Britz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Britz, K., Heidema, J. & Labuschagne, W. Semantics for Dual Preferential Entailment. J Philos Logic 38, 433–446 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-008-9097-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-008-9097-z

Keywords

Navigation