References of "Logica Universalis"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailComputer-Assisted Analysis of the Anderson-Hájek Controversy
Benzmüller, Christoph UL; Weber, Leon; Woltzenlogel Paleo, Bruno

in Logica Universalis (2017), 11(1), 139-151

A universal reasoning approach based on shallow semantical embeddings of higher-order modal logics into classical higher-order logic is exemplarily employed to analyze several modern variants of the ... [more ▼]

A universal reasoning approach based on shallow semantical embeddings of higher-order modal logics into classical higher-order logic is exemplarily employed to analyze several modern variants of the ontological argument on the computer. Several novel findings are reported which contribute to the clarification of a long-standing dispute between Anderson and Hájek. The technology employed in this work, which to some degree realizes Leibniz’s dream of a characteristica universalis and a calculus ratiocinator for solving philosophical controversies, is ready to be fruitfully adopted in larger scale by philosophers. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 11 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailTheory of Semi-Instantiation in Abstract Argumentation
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Logica Universalis (2016), 10(4), 431--516

Detailed reference viewed: 55 (0 UL)
See detailProbabilistic Argumentation. An Equational Approach
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Rodrigues, Odinaldo

in Logica Universalis (2015), abs/1503.05501

There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves 1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and 2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case ... [more ▼]

There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves 1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and 2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: a. the nature of the arguments involved; b. the membership relation in the set S of arguments; c. the attack relation; and d. the choice of extensions. Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc) to an argumentation network hS, R i can be done by adding this feature to each component a – d. This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or meaningful result. A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic argumentation from the translation. Of course what we get depends on how we translate. In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 37 (5 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEquilibrium States in Numerical Argumentation Networks
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Rodrigues, Odinaldo

in Logica Universalis (2015), 9(4), 411--473

Detailed reference viewed: 24 (1 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailProbabilistic Argumentation: An Equational Approach
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Rodrigues, O.

in Logica Universalis (2015), 9(3), 345--382

There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves (1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and (2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the ... [more ▼]

There is a generic way to add any new feature to a system. It involves (1) identifying the basic units which build up the system and (2) introducing the new feature to each of these basic units. In the case where the system is argumentation and the feature is probabilistic we have the following. The basic units are: (a) the nature of the arguments involved; (b) the membership relation in the set S of arguments; (c) the attack relation; and (d) the choice of extensions. Generically to add a new aspect (probabilistic, or fuzzy, or temporal, etc) to an argumentation network ⟨S,R⟩⟨S,R⟩ can be done by adding this feature to each component (a–d). This is a brute-force method and may yield a non-intuitive or meaningful result. A better way is to meaningfully translate the object system into another target system which does have the aspect required and then let the target system endow the aspect on the initial system. In our case we translate argumentation into classical propositional logic and get probabilistic argumentation from the translation. Of course what we get depends on how we translate. In fact, in this paper we introduce probabilistic semantics to abstract argumentation theory based on the equational approach to argumentation networks. We then compare our semantics with existing proposals in the literature including the approaches by M. Thimm and by A. Hunter. Our methodology in general is discussed in the conclusion. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 48 (3 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEquilibrium States in Numerical Argumentation Networks
Gabbay, Dov M. UL; Rodrigues, Odinaldo

in Logica Universalis (2014), abs/1408.6706

Detailed reference viewed: 19 (5 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDung’s Argumentation is Essentially Equivalent to Classical Propositional Logic with the Peirce-Quine Dagger
Gabbay, Dov M. UL

in Logica Universalis (2011), 5(2), 255-318

In this paper we show that some versions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frames are equivalent to classical propositional logic. In fact, Dung’s attack relation is none other than the generalised Peirce– ... [more ▼]

In this paper we show that some versions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frames are equivalent to classical propositional logic. In fact, Dung’s attack relation is none other than the generalised Peirce– Quine dagger connective of classical logic which can generate the other connectives ¬,∧,∨,→ of classical logic. After establishing the above correspondence we offer variations of the Dung argumentation frames in parallel to variations of classical logic, such as resource logics, predicate logic, etc., etc., and create resource argumentation frames, predicate argumentation frames, etc., etc. We also offer the notion of logic proof as a geometrical walk along the nodes of a Dung network and thus we are able to offer a geometrical abstraction of the notion of inference based argumentation. Thus our paper is also a contribution to the question: “What is a logical system” in as much as it integrates logic with abstract argumentation networks [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 56 (0 UL)