الصفحة 1
الصفحة 1
Inconsistency tolerance
Inconsistency arises in many areas in advanced computing. Often inconsistency is unwanted, for example in the specification for a plan or in sensor fusion in robotics; however, sometimes inconsistency is useful. Whether inconsistency is unwanted or useful, there is a need to develop tolerance to inconsistency in application technologies such as databases, knowledge bases, and software systems. To address this situation, inconsistency tolerance is being built on foundational technologies for identifying and analyzing inconsistency in information, for representing and reasoning with inconsistent information, for resolving inconsistent information, and for merging inconsistent information. The idea for this book arose out of a Dagstuhl Seminar on the topic held in summer 2003. The nine chapters in this first book devoted to the subject of inconsistency tolerance were carefully invited and anonymously reviewed. The book provides an exciting introduction to this new field.
Logic for Computer Scientists
This book introduces the notions and methods of formal logic from a computer science standpoint, covering propositional logic, predicate logic, and foundations of logic programming. It presents applications and themes of computer science research such as resolution, automated deduction, and logic programming in a rigorous but readable way.The style and scope of the work, rounded out by the inclusion of exercises, make this an excellent textbook for an advanced undergraduate course in logic for computer scientists.
Completeness theory for propositional logics
Completeness is one of the most important notions in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Many variants of the notion have been de?ned in literature. We shallconcentrateonthesevariants,andaspects,of completenesswhicharede?ned in propositional logic. Completeness means the possibility of getting all correct and reliable sc- mata of inference by use of logical methods. The word ‘all’, seemingly neutral, is here a crucial point of distinction. Assuming the de?nition as given by E. Post we get, say, a global notion of completeness in which the reliability refers only to syntactic means of logic and outside the correct schemata of inference there are only inconsistent ones. It is impossible, however, to leave aside local aspects of the notion when we want to make it relative to some given or invented notion of truth. Completeness understood in this sense is the adequacy of logic in relation to some semantics, and the change of the logic is accompanied by the change of its semantics.
