Nonmonotonic reasoning reasoning in default logic

4 important questions on Nonmonotonic reasoning reasoning in default logic

Normal default theories are semi-monotonic


The addition of default rules never elimatese but extends or adds new extensions

===

Let T1 = (W, D1) and T2 = (W,D2) be default theories such that D1 is contained within D2. Then for every extension e1 of T1 there is an extensiosn e2 o T2 such that e1 is contained within e2.

Why do we need theorem proving

When we are interested in knowing whether a specific formula is included in an extension of a default theory T, it is not appropraite to start determining extensions of T blindly

Resolvent of (C1, D1) and (C2,D2)

Givens two indexed clauses (C1, D1) and (C2,D2), if R is a unsual resolvent of C1 and C2, then the indexed clause (R,D_1 union D2) is a resolvent
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart

Top-down default proof


A closed formula F with respect to a closed normal default theory T = (W,D) is a sequence of linear resolution proofs L0, ... Lk such that
  1. L0 is a linear resolution proof of F from clauses(T)
  2. for 0 =< i =< k, Li returns Di
  3. for 1 =< i =< k, Li is a linear resolution proof of pre(Di-1) from clauses(T)
  4. Dk = empty set
  5. W union U {cons(D_i) is satisfiable

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo