Circumscription and implicit definability

DOI10.1007/BF00244277MaRDI QIDQ1819950zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Jon Doyle

Publication date 1985

Published in Journal of Automated Reasoning (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00244277

zbMATH Keywords

artificial intelligenceBeth's theoremcircumscriptionimplicit definitionnon-monotonic reasoning

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Artificial intelligence (68T99)

Review text

We explore some connections between the technique of circumscription in artificial intelligence and the notion of implicit definition in mathematical logic. Implicit definition can be taken as the informal intent, but not necessarily the formal result, of circumscription. This raises some questions for logical theory and suggests some implications for artificial intelligence practice. The principal implication is that when circumscription works its conclusions can be explicitly described.

Recommendations

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 67498
• A theorem on the consistency of circumscription
• Circumscribing embedded implications (without stratifications)
• Definability and commonsense reasoning
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 611097

Cited in

(11)

• On the satisfiability of circumscription
• Completeness results for circumscription
• Closed-world databases and circumscription
• The importance of open and recursive circumscription
• Definability and commonsense reasoning
• Addressing Circular Definitions via Systems of Proofs
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 611097 (Why is no real title available?)
• Implicit definability of subfields
• Mutual definability does not imply definitional equivalence, a simple example
• Using approximate reasoning to represent default knowledge
• Decidability and definability with circumscription

This page was built for publication: Circumscription and implicit definability

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1819950)