What is <Emphasis Type="Italic">the</Emphasis> Logic of Inference?

The topic of this paper is the question whether there is a logic which could be justly called the logic of inference. It may seem that at least since Prawitz, Dummett and others demonstrated the proof-theoretical prominency of intuitionistic logic, the forthcoming answer is that it is this logic that is the obvious choice for the accolade. Though there is little doubt that this choice is correct (provided that inference is construed as inherently single-conclusion and complying with the Gentzenian structural rules), I do not think that the usual justification of it is satisfactory. Therefore, I will first try to clarify what exactly is meant by the question, and then sketch a conceptual framework in which it can be reasonably handled. I will introduce the concept of ‘inferentially native’ logical operators (those which explicate inferential properties) and I will show that the axiomatization of these operators leads to the axiomatic system of intuitionistic logic. Finally, I will discuss what modifications of this answer enter the picture when more general notions of inference are considered. Presented by Hannes Leitgeb     

Completeness of a Branching-Time Logic with Possible Choices

In this paper we present BTC, which is a complete logic for branchingtime whose modal operator quantifies over histories and whose temporal operators involve a restricted quantification over histories in a given possible choice. This is a technical novelty, since the operators of the usual logics for branching-time such as CTL express an unrestricted quantification over histories and moments. The value of the apparatus we introduce is connected to those logics of agency that are interpreted on branching-time, as for instance Stit Logics.     

社会群体中的偏好逻辑

在许多多主体偏好逻辑系统中,主体之间是没有联系的,因而无法描述主体间的偏好互动。借鉴＂The Logic in the Community＂一文中称为＂群体压力＂的例子对偏好的影响,本文在＂The Logic in the Community＂所提出的系统构架上,加入偏好算子和两个动态算子,通过构造归约公理说明这些算子可以被无偿添加,并借助这些规约公理证明了系统的完全性。     

A logic for diffusion in social networks

This paper introduces a general logical framework for reasoning about diffusion processes within social networks. The new “Logic for Diffusion in Social Networks” is a dynamic extension of standard hybrid logic, allowing to model complex phenomena involving several properties of agents. We provide a complete axiomatization and a terminating and complete tableau system for this logic and show how to apply the framework to diffusion phenomena documented in social networks analysis.     

First-Order Logic Formalisation of Impossibility Theorems in Preference Aggregation

In preference aggregation a set of individuals express preferences over a set of alternatives, and these preferences have to be aggregated into a collective preference. When preferences are represented as orders, aggregation procedures are called social welfare functions. Classical results in social choice theory state that it is impossible to aggregate the preferences of a set of individuals under different natural sets of axiomatic conditions. We define a first-order language for social welfare functions and we give a complete axiomatisation for this class, without having the number of individuals or alternatives specified in the language. We are able to express classical axiomatic requirements in our first-order language, giving formal axioms for three classical theorems of preference aggregation by Arrow, by Sen, and by Kirman and Sondermann. We explore to what extent such theorems can be formally derived from our axiomatisations, obtaining positive results for Sen’s Theorem and the Kirman-Sondermann Theorem. For the case of Arrow’s Theorem, which does not apply in the case of infinite societies, we have to resort to fixing the number of individuals with an additional axiom. In the long run, we hope that our approach to formalisation can serve as the basis for a fully automated proof of classical and new theorems in social choice theory.     

Relativized common knowledge for dynamic epistemic logic

Relativized common knowledge is a generalization of common knowledge proposed for public announcement logic by treating knowledge update as relativization. Among other things relativized common knowledge, unlike standard common knowledge, allows reduction axioms for the public announcement operators. Public announcement logic can be seen as one of the simplest special cases of action model logic (AML). However, so far no notion of relativized common knowledge has been proposed for AML in general. That is what we do in this paper. We propose a notion of action model relativized common knowledge for action model logic, and study expressive power and complete axiomatizations of resulting logics. Along the way we fill some gaps in existing expressivity results for standard relativized common knowledge.     

Logic programs and connectionist networks

One facet of the question of integration of Logic and Connectionist Systems, and how these can complement each other, concerns the points of contact, in terms of semantics, between neural networks and logic programs. In this paper, we show that certain semantic operators for propositional logic programs can be computed by feedforward connectionist networks, and that the same semantic operators for first-order normal logic programs can be approximated by feedforward connectionist networks. Turning the networks into recurrent ones allows one also to approximate the models associated with the semantic operators. Our methods depend on a well-known theorem of Funahashi, and necessitate the study of when Funahashi's theorem can be applied, and also the study of what means of approximation are appropriate and significant.     

A logic of comparative obligation

Normal systems of modal logic, interpreted as deontic logics, are unsuitable for a logic of conflicting obligations. By using modal operators based on a more complex semantics, however, we can provide for conflicting obligations, as in [9], which is formally similar to a fragment of the logic of ability later given in [2], Having gone that far, we may find it desirable to be able to express and consider claims about the comparative strengths, or degrees of urgency, of the conflicting obligations under which we stand. This paper, building on the formalism of the logic of ability in [2], provides a complete and decidable system for such a language.     

一个多值逻辑的一阶谓词系统

鞠实儿曾提出一个开放类三值命题逻辑系统,这一逻辑也可以推广到任意m值逻辑情形,成为一个联结词函数完全的逻辑。本文将对推广的命题逻辑系统L^＊建立一种一阶谓词系统,并证明其可靠性、完全性。     

Empirical underidentification in estimating random utility models: The role of choice sets and standardizations

A standard approach to distinguishing people’s risk preferences is to estimate a random utility model using a power utility function to characterize the preferences and a logit function to capture choice consistency. We demonstrate that with often-used choice situations, this model suffers from empirical underidentification, meaning that parameters cannot be estimated precisely. With simulations of estimation accuracy and Kullback–Leibler divergence measures we examined factors that potentially mitigate this problem. First, using a choice set that guarantees a switch in the utility order between two risky gambles in the range of plausible values leads to higher estimation accuracy than randomly created choice sets or the purpose-built choice sets common in the literature. Second, parameter estimates are regularly correlated, which contributes to empirical underidentification. Examining standardizations of the utility scale, we show that they mitigate this correlation and additionally improve the estimation accuracy for choice consistency. Yet, they can have detrimental effects on the estimation accuracy of risk preference. Finally, we also show how repeated versus distinct choice sets and an increase in observations affect estimation accuracy. Together, these results should help researchers make informed design choices to estimate parameters in the random utility model more precisely.     

Game logic and its applications I

This paper provides a logic framework for investigations of game theoretical problems. We adopt an infinitary extension of classical predicate logic as the base logic of the framework. The reason for an infinitary extension is to express the common knowledge concept explicitly. Depending upon the choice of axioms on the knowledge operators, there is a hierarchy of logics. The limit case is an infinitary predicate extension of modal propositional logic KD4, and is of special interest in applications. In Part I, we develop the basic framework, and show some applications: an epistemic axiomatization of Nash equilibrium and formal undecidability on the playability of a game. To show the formal undecidability, we use a term existence theorem, which will be proved in Part II.The authors thank Hiroakira Ono for helpful discussions and encouragements from the early stage of this research project, and Philippe Mongin, Mitio Takano and a referee of this journal for comments on earlier versions of this paper. The first and second authors are partially supported, respectively, by Tokyo Center of Economic Research and Grant-in-Aids for Scientific Research 04640215, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.Presented by H. Ono     

Negation in the Context of Gaggle Theory

We study an application of gaggle theory to unary negative modal operators. First we treat negation as impossibility and get a minimal logic system Ki that has a perp semantics. Dunn's kite of different negations can be dealt with in the extensions of this basic logic K_i. Next we treat negation as “unnecessity” and use a characteristic semantics for different negations in a kite which is dual to Dunn's original one. K_u is the minimal logic that has a characteristic semantics. We also show that Shramko's falsification logic FL can be incorporated into some extension of this basic logic K_u. Finally, we unite the two basic logics K_i and K_u together to get a negative modal logic K_-, which is dual to the positive modal logic K₊ in [7]. Shramko has suggested an extension of Dunn's kite and also a dual version in [12]. He also suggested combining them into a “united” kite. We give a united semantics for this united kite of negations.     

The Undecidability of Iterated Modal Relativization

In dynamic epistemic logic and other fields, it is natural to consider relativization as an operator taking sentences to sentences. When using the ideas and methods of dynamic logic, one would like to iterate operators. This leads to iterated relativization. We are also concerned with the transitive closure operation, due to its connection to common knowledge. We show that for three fragments of the logic of iterated relativization and transitive closure, the satisfiability problems are fi1 ¹₁–complete. Two of these fragments do not include transitive closure. We also show that the question of whether a sentence in these fragments has a finite (tree) model is fi0 ⁰₁–complete. These results go via reduction to problems concerning domino systems.     

Decidable Cases of First-order Temporal Logic with Functions

We consider the decision problem for cases of first-order temporal logic with function symbols and without equality. The monadic monodic fragment with flexible functions can be decided with EXPSPACE-complete complexity. A single rigid function is sufficient to make the logic not recursively enumerable. However, the monadic monodic fragment with rigid functions, where no two distinct terms have variables bound by the same quantifier, is decidable and EXPSPACE-complete. Presented by Robert Goldblatt     

Some Logics of Iterated Belief Change

The problems that surround iterated contractions and expansions of beliefs are approached by studying hypertheories, a generalisation of Adam Grove's notion of systems of spheres. By using a language with dynamic and doxastic operators different ideas about the basic nature of belief change are axiomatised. It is shown that by imposing quite natural constraints on how hypertheories may change, the basic logics for belief change can be strengthened considerably to bring one closer to a theory of iterated belief change. It is then argued that the logic of expansion, in particular, cannot without loss of generality be strengthened any further to allow for a full logic of iterated belief change. To remedy this situation a notion of directed expansion is introduced that allows for a full logic of iterated belief change. The new operation is given an axiomatisation that is complete for linear hypertheories.     

Infinitary propositional normal modal logic

A logic with normal modal operators and countable infinite conjunctions and disjunctions is introduced. A Hilbert's style axiomatization is proved complete for this logic, as well as for countable sublogics and subtheories. It is also shown that the logic has the interpolation property.     

Coinductive models and normal forms for modal logics (or how we learned to stop worrying and love coinduction)

We present a coinductive definition of models for modal logics and show that it provides a homogeneous framework in which it is possible to include different modal languages ranging from classical modalities to operators from hybrid and memory logics. Moreover, results that had to be proved separately for each different language—but whose proofs were known to be mere routine—now can be proved in a general way. We show, for example, that we can have a unique definition of bisimulation for all these languages, and prove a single invariance-under-bisimulation theorem.We then use the new framework to investigate normal forms for modal logics. The normal form we introduce may have a smaller modal depth than the original formula, and it is inspired by global modalities like the universal modality and the satisfiability operator from hybrid logics. These modalities can be extracted from under the scope of other operators. We provide a general definition of extractable modalities and show how to compute extracted normal forms. As it is the case with other classical normal forms—e.g., the conjunctive normal form of propositional logic—the extracted normal form of a formula can be exponentially bigger than the original formula, if we require the two formulas to be equivalent. If we only require equi-satisfiability, then every modal formula has an extracted normal form which is only polynomially bigger than the original formula, and it can be computed in polynomial time.     

Changing the Rules of Play

Social processes like voting procedures, debates, etc. depend crucially on the precise rules which define them. This rule sensitivity is illustrated by two examples, in the case of preference aggregation by the parliamentary debate concerning the German capital, and in the case of judgement aggregation by the doctrinal paradox or discursive dilemma. Using social choice functions and the theory of mechanism design, one can formulate what it means for a particular set of rules to be correct under a given game-theoretic solution concept. Furthermore, it is argued that in particular methods from logic and computer science are useful to describe and reason about the rules of play in a precise manner.