Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:11:06.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative expressiveness of defeasible logics II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

MICHAEL J. MAHER
MICHAEL J. MAHER*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maher (2012) introduced an approach for relative expressiveness of defeasible logics, and two notions of relative expressiveness were investigated. Using the first of these definitions of relative expressiveness, we show that all the defeasible logics in the DL framework are equally expressive under this formulation of relative expressiveness. The second formulation of relative expressiveness is stronger than the first. However, we show that logics incorporating individual defeat are equally expressive as the corresponding logics with team defeat. Thus the only differences in expressiveness of logics in DL arise from differences in how ambiguity is handled. This completes the study of relative expressiveness in DL begun in Maher (2012).

Keywords

defeasible logicnon-monotonic reasoningrelative expressiveness
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4-5: 29th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2013 , pp. 579 - 592
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 [MICHAEL J. MAHER] 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G. and Maher, M. J. 2000. A flexible framework for defeasible logics. In AAAI/IAAI, AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 405–410.Google Scholar
Billington, D., Antoniou, G., Governatori, G. and Maher, M. J. 2010. An inclusion theorem for defeasible logics. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 12, 1, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 2, 321–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, M. J. 2001. Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. TPLP 1, 6, 691–711.Google Scholar
Maher, M. J. 2012. Relative expressiveness of defeasible logics. TPLP 12, 4–5, 793–810.Google Scholar
Maher, M. J. and Governatori, G. 1999. A semantic decomposition of defeasible logics. In AAAI/IAAI, AAAI Press, 299–305.Google Scholar
Maher, M. J., Governatori, G. and Lam, H. P. 2011. Well-founded defeasible logics. Tech. rep.Google Scholar
Maier, F. and Nute, D. 2006. Ambiguity propagating defeasible logic and the well-founded semantics. In JELIA, Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B. and Lisitsa, A., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4160. Springer, 306–318.Google Scholar
Maier, F. and Nute, D. 2010. Well-founded semantics for defeasible logic. Synthese 176, 2, 243–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. 2009. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Maher supplementary material

Appendix

Download Maher supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 280.7 KB