pertinence construed modally
Post on 05-Dec-2014
427 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Pertinence Construed Modally
Arina Britz1,2 Johannes Heidema2 Ivan Varzinczak1
1Meraka Institute, CSIRPretoria, South Africa
2University of South AfricaPretoria, South Africa
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 1 / 29
A Simple Example (attributed to Russell)
Let
p: “Mars orbits the Sun”
q: “a red teapot is orbiting Mars”
In Classical Logic
¬p ∧ q |= q
¬p |= ¬p ∨ q
¬p |= >⊥ |= ¬p
|= p → (q → p)
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 2 / 29
A Simple Example (attributed to Russell)
Let
p: “Mars orbits the Sun”
q: “a red teapot is orbiting Mars”
In Classical Logic
¬p ∧ q |= q
¬p |= ¬p ∨ q
¬p |= >⊥ |= ¬p
|= p → (q → p)
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 2 / 29
A Simple Example (attributed to Russell)
Let
p: “Mars orbits the Sun”
q: “a red teapot is orbiting Mars”
In Classical Logic
¬p ∧ q |= q (disjunctive syllogism: ¬p ∧ (p ∨ q) |= q)
¬p |= ¬p ∨ q
¬p |= >⊥ |= ¬p (ex contradictione quodlibet)
|= p → (q → p) (positive paradox)
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 2 / 29
A Simple Example (attributed to Russell)
Let
p: “Mars orbits the Sun”
q: “a red teapot is orbiting Mars”
In Classical Logic
¬p ∧ q |= q (disjunctive syllogism: ¬p ∧ (p ∨ q) |= q)
¬p |= ¬p ∨ q
¬p |= >⊥ |= ¬p (ex contradictione quodlibet)
|= p → (q → p) (positive paradox)
Do we want this?
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 2 / 29
Classical Logic: the Logic of ‘Complete Ignorance’
α |= β
W
α
β
Fact
Every α-world is a β-world
β ∧ ¬α-worlds completely free and arbitraryI Nothing to do with α or any of the α-worlds
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 3 / 29
Classical Logic: the Logic of ‘Complete Ignorance’
α |= β
W
α
β
But
One intuitive connotation of entailment is that more,some notion of relevance or pertinence, should holdbetween α and β
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 3 / 29
Classical Logic: the Logic of ‘Complete Ignorance’
α |= β
W
α
β
Usually
Extra information expressed either as
Syntactic rules, or as
Semantic constraintsI Binary relation on sets of sentences
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 3 / 29
Less Attractive Features of Traditional Relevance Logics
Following Avron [1992]:
Conflation of |= with → [Anderson and Belnap, 1975, 1992]
Start with proof theory, then find a proper semantics
Moreover
Sometimes metaphysical ideas get admixed into the relevanceendeavour
Relevance logics traditionally pay scant attention to contexts
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 4 / 29
Less Attractive Features of Traditional Relevance Logics
Following Avron [1992]:
Conflation of |= with → [Anderson and Belnap, 1975, 1992]
Start with proof theory, then find a proper semantics
Moreover
Sometimes metaphysical ideas get admixed into the relevanceendeavour
Relevance logics traditionally pay scant attention to contexts
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 4 / 29
Less Attractive Features of Traditional Relevance Logics
Following Avron [1992]:
Conflation of |= with → [Anderson and Belnap, 1975, 1992]
Start with proof theory, then find a proper semantics
Moreover
Sometimes metaphysical ideas get admixed into the relevanceendeavour
Relevance logics traditionally pay scant attention to contexts
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 4 / 29
Less Attractive Features of Traditional Relevance Logics
Following Avron [1992]:
Conflation of |= with → [Anderson and Belnap, 1975, 1992]
Start with proof theory, then find a proper semantics
Moreover
Sometimes metaphysical ideas get admixed into the relevanceendeavour
Relevance logics traditionally pay scant attention to contexts
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 4 / 29
Less Attractive Features of Traditional Relevance Logics
Following Avron [1992]:
Conflation of |= with → [Anderson and Belnap, 1975, 1992]
Start with proof theory, then find a proper semantics
Moreover
Sometimes metaphysical ideas get admixed into the relevanceendeavour
Relevance logics traditionally pay scant attention to contexts
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 4 / 29
Outline
1 Logical PreliminariesModal Logic
2 Pertinent EntailmentInfra-Modal EntailmentPropertiesExamples
3 Conclusion
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 5 / 29
Outline
1 Logical PreliminariesModal Logic
2 Pertinent EntailmentInfra-Modal EntailmentPropertiesExamples
3 Conclusion
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 5 / 29
Outline
1 Logical PreliminariesModal Logic
2 Pertinent EntailmentInfra-Modal EntailmentPropertiesExamples
3 Conclusion
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 5 / 29
Outline
1 Logical PreliminariesModal Logic
2 Pertinent EntailmentInfra-Modal EntailmentPropertiesExamples
3 Conclusion
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 6 / 29
Modal Logic
Propositional modal language
Atoms: p, q, . . . and >Normal modal operator 2
Formulas: α, β, . . .
α ::= p | > | ¬α | α ∧ α | 2α
Other connectives defined as usual
3α ≡def ¬2¬αGiven 2 and 3, we can speak of their converses: 2̆ and 3̆
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 7 / 29
Modal Logic
Propositional modal language
Atoms: p, q, . . . and >Normal modal operator 2
Formulas: α, β, . . .
α ::= p | > | ¬α | α ∧ α | 2α
Other connectives defined as usual
3α ≡def ¬2¬αGiven 2 and 3, we can speak of their converses: 2̆ and 3̆
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 7 / 29
Modal Logic
Propositional modal language
Atoms: p, q, . . . and >Normal modal operator 2
Formulas: α, β, . . .
α ::= p | > | ¬α | α ∧ α | 2α
Other connectives defined as usual
3α ≡def ¬2¬αGiven 2 and 3, we can speak of their converses: 2̆ and 3̆
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 7 / 29
Modal Logic
Standard semantics
Definition
A model is a tuple M = 〈W,R,V〉, where
W is a set of worlds
R ⊆W×W is an accessibility relation on W
V : P×W −→ {0, 1} is a valuation
M :
¬p, qw2 p, q w3
¬p,¬qw1 p,¬q w4
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 8 / 29
Modal Logic
Standard semantics
Definition
A model is a tuple M = 〈W,R,V〉, where
W is a set of worlds
R ⊆W×W is an accessibility relation on W
V : P×W −→ {0, 1} is a valuation
M :
¬p, qw2 p, q w3
¬p,¬qw1 p,¬q w4
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 8 / 29
Modal Logic
Standard semantics
Definition
Given a model M = 〈W,R,V〉,w M p iff V(p,w) = 1
w M> for every w ∈W
w M¬α iff w 6 Mα
w Mα ∧ β iff w Mα and w Mβ
w M2α iff w ′ Mα for every w ′ such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
truth conditions for the other connectives are as usual
w ′ M 2̆α iff w Mα for every w such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
w ′ M 3̆α iff w Mα for some w such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
If w Mα for every w ∈W, we say that α is valid in M , denoted |=Mα
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 9 / 29
Modal Logic
Standard semantics
Definition
Given a model M = 〈W,R,V〉,w M p iff V(p,w) = 1
w M> for every w ∈W
w M¬α iff w 6 Mα
w Mα ∧ β iff w Mα and w Mβ
w M2α iff w ′ Mα for every w ′ such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
truth conditions for the other connectives are as usual
w ′ M 2̆α iff w Mα for every w such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
w ′ M 3̆α iff w Mα for some w such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
If w Mα for every w ∈W, we say that α is valid in M , denoted |=Mα
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 9 / 29
Modal Logic
Standard semantics
Definition
Given a model M = 〈W,R,V〉,w M p iff V(p,w) = 1
w M> for every w ∈W
w M¬α iff w 6 Mα
w Mα ∧ β iff w Mα and w Mβ
w M2α iff w ′ Mα for every w ′ such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
truth conditions for the other connectives are as usual
w ′ M 2̆α iff w Mα for every w such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
w ′ M 3̆α iff w Mα for some w such that (w ,w ′) ∈ R
If w Mα for every w ∈W, we say that α is valid in M , denoted |=Mα
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 9 / 29
Modal Logic
Classes of models
Sets of models we work with
Determined by additional constraints
I Axiom schemas (reflexivity, transitivity, etc.)
I Global axioms (see later)
Here we are interested in the class of reflexive models
I Given M = 〈W,R,V〉, idW ⊆ R
I Axiom schema 2α→ α
I Modal logic KT
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 10 / 29
Modal Logic
Classes of models
Sets of models we work with
Determined by additional constraints
I Axiom schemas (reflexivity, transitivity, etc.)
I Global axioms (see later)
Here we are interested in the class of reflexive models
I Given M = 〈W,R,V〉, idW ⊆ R
I Axiom schema 2α→ α
I Modal logic KT
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 10 / 29
Modal Logic
Classes of models
Sets of models we work with
Determined by additional constraints
I Axiom schemas (reflexivity, transitivity, etc.)
I Global axioms (see later)
Here we are interested in the class of reflexive models
I Given M = 〈W,R,V〉, idW ⊆ R
I Axiom schema 2α→ α
I Modal logic KT
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 10 / 29
Modal Logic
Local consequence
Definition
α entails β in M = 〈W,R,V〉 (denoted α |=Mβ) iff for every w ∈W, if
w Mα, then w Mβ.
Definition
Let C be a class of models
α entails β in C (denoted α |=Cβ) iff α |=Mβ for every M ∈ C
Validity and satisfiability in C defined as usual
When C is clear from the context, we write α |= β instead of α |=Cβ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 11 / 29
Modal Logic
Local consequence
Definition
α entails β in M = 〈W,R,V〉 (denoted α |=Mβ) iff for every w ∈W, if
w Mα, then w Mβ.
Definition
Let C be a class of models
α entails β in C (denoted α |=Cβ) iff α |=Mβ for every M ∈ C
Validity and satisfiability in C defined as usual
When C is clear from the context, we write α |= β instead of α |=Cβ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 11 / 29
Modal Logic
Local consequence
Definition
α entails β in M = 〈W,R,V〉 (denoted α |=Mβ) iff for every w ∈W, if
w Mα, then w Mβ.
Definition
Let C be a class of models
α entails β in C (denoted α |=Cβ) iff α |=Mβ for every M ∈ C
Validity and satisfiability in C defined as usual
When C is clear from the context, we write α |= β instead of α |=Cβ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 11 / 29
Outline
1 Logical PreliminariesModal Logic
2 Pertinent EntailmentInfra-Modal EntailmentPropertiesExamples
3 Conclusion
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 12 / 29
The Flow of Entailment
Asymmetric, directed
Access from premiss to consequence
Entailment as ‘access’: natural analogue in the accessibility relation
However
Relevance cannot be captured by standard modalities [Meyer, 1975]
Relevance is a relation between sentences (sets of worlds), and notbetween worlds alone
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 13 / 29
The Flow of Entailment
Asymmetric, directed
Access from premiss to consequence
Entailment as ‘access’: natural analogue in the accessibility relation
However
Relevance cannot be captured by standard modalities [Meyer, 1975]
Relevance is a relation between sentences (sets of worlds), and notbetween worlds alone
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 13 / 29
The Flow of Entailment
Asymmetric, directed
Access from premiss to consequence
Entailment as ‘access’: natural analogue in the accessibility relation
However
Relevance cannot be captured by standard modalities [Meyer, 1975]
Relevance is a relation between sentences (sets of worlds), and notbetween worlds alone
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 13 / 29
The Flow of Entailment
Asymmetric, directed
Access from premiss to consequence
Entailment as ‘access’: natural analogue in the accessibility relation
However
Relevance cannot be captured by standard modalities [Meyer, 1975]
Relevance is a relation between sentences (sets of worlds), and notbetween worlds alone
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 13 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
Notion of pertinence in the meta-level
Pertinence of α and β to each other
In our new entailment of β by α, the condition that we impose upon the(previously wild) β ∧ ¬α-worlds is that now each of them must beaccessible from some α-world.
W
α
β •
•
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 14 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
Notion of pertinence in the meta-level
Pertinence of α and β to each other
In our new entailment of β by α, the condition that we impose upon the(previously wild) β ∧ ¬α-worlds is that now each of them must beaccessible from some α-world.
W
α
β •
•
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 14 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
Definition
α pertinently entails β in M (denoted α |<Mβ) iff α |=Mβ and β |=M 3̆α
Definition
α pertinently entails β in the class C of models (denoted α |<Cβ) iff for
every M ∈ C , α |<Mβ
When C is clear from the context, we write α |< β instead of α |<Cβ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 15 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
Definition
α pertinently entails β in M (denoted α |<Mβ) iff α |=Mβ and β |=M 3̆α
Definition
α pertinently entails β in the class C of models (denoted α |<Cβ) iff for
every M ∈ C , α |<Mβ
When C is clear from the context, we write α |< β instead of α |<Cβ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 15 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
Definition
α pertinently entails β in M (denoted α |<Mβ) iff α |=Mβ and β |=M 3̆α
Definition
α pertinently entails β in the class C of models (denoted α |<Cβ) iff for
every M ∈ C , α |<Mβ
When C is clear from the context, we write α |< β instead of α |<Cβ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 15 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
W
α
β
3̆α
|<
• 3̆α
• β
• α
• •. . .
Clearly, |< is infra-modal: if α |< β, then α |= β
‘|<’ vs. ‘|=’ like ‘<’ vs. ‘=’
Proposition
α |< β iff α ∨ β ≡ β ∧ 3̆α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 16 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
W
α
β
3̆α
|<
• 3̆α
• β
• α
• •. . .
Clearly, |< is infra-modal: if α |< β, then α |= β
‘|<’ vs. ‘|=’ like ‘<’ vs. ‘=’
Proposition
α |< β iff α ∨ β ≡ β ∧ 3̆α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 16 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
W
α
β
3̆α
|<
• 3̆α
• β
• α
• •. . .
Clearly, |< is infra-modal: if α |< β, then α |= β
‘|<’ vs. ‘|=’ like ‘<’ vs. ‘=’
Proposition
α |< β iff α ∨ β ≡ β ∧ 3̆α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 16 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
W
α
β
3̆α
|<
• 3̆α
• β
• α
• •. . .
Clearly, |< is infra-modal: if α |< β, then α |= β
‘|<’ vs. ‘|=’ like ‘<’ vs. ‘=’
Proposition
α |< β iff α ∨ β ≡ β ∧ 3̆α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 16 / 29
Pertinence in the Meta-Level
W
α
β
3̆α
|<
• 3̆α
• β
• α
• •. . .
Clearly, |< is infra-modal: if α |< β, then α |= β
‘|<’ vs. ‘|=’ like ‘<’ vs. ‘=’
Proposition
α |< β iff α ∨ β ≡ β ∧ 3̆α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 16 / 29
A Spectrum of Entailment Relations
Only restriction on R: idW ⊆ R ⊆W×W (modal logic KT)
The minimum (w.r.t. ⊆) case: R = idW
I maximum pertinence: |< = ≡
The maximum case: R = W×W (assume α 6≡ ⊥, cf. later)I minimum pertinence: |< = |=
Theorem
If the underlying modal logic is at least KT, then ≡ ⊆ |< ⊂ |=
Note how, psychologically speaking, with increased pertinencebetween premiss and consequence ‘if’ tends to drift in the direction of‘if and only if’ [Johnson-Laird & Savary, 1999]
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 17 / 29
A Spectrum of Entailment Relations
Only restriction on R: idW ⊆ R ⊆W×W (modal logic KT)
The minimum (w.r.t. ⊆) case: R = idW
I maximum pertinence: |< = ≡
The maximum case: R = W×W (assume α 6≡ ⊥, cf. later)I minimum pertinence: |< = |=
Theorem
If the underlying modal logic is at least KT, then ≡ ⊆ |< ⊂ |=
Note how, psychologically speaking, with increased pertinencebetween premiss and consequence ‘if’ tends to drift in the direction of‘if and only if’ [Johnson-Laird & Savary, 1999]
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 17 / 29
A Spectrum of Entailment Relations
Only restriction on R: idW ⊆ R ⊆W×W (modal logic KT)
The minimum (w.r.t. ⊆) case: R = idW
I maximum pertinence: |< = ≡
The maximum case: R = W×W (assume α 6≡ ⊥, cf. later)I minimum pertinence: |< = |=
Theorem
If the underlying modal logic is at least KT, then ≡ ⊆ |< ⊂ |=
Note how, psychologically speaking, with increased pertinencebetween premiss and consequence ‘if’ tends to drift in the direction of‘if and only if’ [Johnson-Laird & Savary, 1999]
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 17 / 29
A Spectrum of Entailment Relations
Only restriction on R: idW ⊆ R ⊆W×W (modal logic KT)
The minimum (w.r.t. ⊆) case: R = idW
I maximum pertinence: |< = ≡
The maximum case: R = W×W (assume α 6≡ ⊥, cf. later)I minimum pertinence: |< = |=
Theorem
If the underlying modal logic is at least KT, then ≡ ⊆ |< ⊂ |=
Note how, psychologically speaking, with increased pertinencebetween premiss and consequence ‘if’ tends to drift in the direction of‘if and only if’ [Johnson-Laird & Savary, 1999]
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 17 / 29
Outline
1 Logical PreliminariesModal Logic
2 Pertinent EntailmentInfra-Modal EntailmentPropertiesExamples
3 Conclusion
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 18 / 29
Properties of |<Decidability
Straightforward from definition
Non-explosiveness
falsum is not omnigenerating, in fact, only self-generating
if ⊥ |< α, then α ≡ ⊥
More generally
Theorem
Let α |<Cβ. Then if |=Cα→ ⊥, then |=Cβ → ⊥
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 19 / 29
Properties of |<Decidability
Straightforward from definition
Non-explosiveness
falsum is not omnigenerating, in fact, only self-generating
if ⊥ |< α, then α ≡ ⊥
More generally
Theorem
Let α |<Cβ. Then if |=Cα→ ⊥, then |=Cβ → ⊥
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 19 / 29
Properties of |<Decidability
Straightforward from definition
Non-explosiveness
falsum is not omnigenerating, in fact, only self-generating
if ⊥ |< α, then α ≡ ⊥
More generally
Theorem
Let α |<Cβ. Then if |=Cα→ ⊥, then |=Cβ → ⊥
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 19 / 29
Properties of |<|< is paratrivial
verum is not omnigenerated
α 6|< > in general
|< preserves valid modal formulas
Theorem
> |< α iff > |= α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 20 / 29
Properties of |<|< is paratrivial
verum is not omnigenerated
α 6|< > in general
|< preserves valid modal formulas
Theorem
> |< α iff > |= α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 20 / 29
Properties of |<|< rules out disjunctive syllogism
(¬α ∨ β) ∧ α |= β (equivalent to β ∧ α |= β)
β ∧ α |< β means that β ∧ α |= β and β |= 3̆(β ∧ α)
Every β-world, even if not an α-world, can be reached from someβ ∧ α-world
Does not hold in general
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 21 / 29
Properties of |<|< rules out disjunctive syllogism
(¬α ∨ β) ∧ α |= β (equivalent to β ∧ α |= β)
β ∧ α |< β means that β ∧ α |= β and β |= 3̆(β ∧ α)
Every β-world, even if not an α-world, can be reached from someβ ∧ α-world
Does not hold in general
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 21 / 29
Properties of |<|< rules out disjunctive syllogism
(¬α ∨ β) ∧ α |= β (equivalent to β ∧ α |= β)
β ∧ α |< β means that β ∧ α |= β and β |= 3̆(β ∧ α)
Every β-world, even if not an α-world, can be reached from someβ ∧ α-world
Does not hold in general
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 21 / 29
Properties of |<|< does not satisfy contraposition
Classically and modally we have contraposition:I α |= β is equivalent to ¬β |= ¬α
Not so for |<, and proof by contradiction does not hold in general
¬β |< ¬α says that α |= β and ¬α |= 3̆¬β: Every α-world is aβ-world and every ¬α-world can be reached from some ¬β-world
|< does not satisfy the deduction theorem α |< β iff > |< α→ β
(⇒) direction: OK
(⇐) direction: Fails! Let > |< α→ β, i.e., > |= α→ β andα→ β |= 3̆>. The latter is just the triviality α→ β |= >. We donot (in general) get the needed β |= 3̆α.
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 22 / 29
Properties of |<|< does not satisfy contraposition
Classically and modally we have contraposition:I α |= β is equivalent to ¬β |= ¬α
Not so for |<, and proof by contradiction does not hold in general
¬β |< ¬α says that α |= β and ¬α |= 3̆¬β: Every α-world is aβ-world and every ¬α-world can be reached from some ¬β-world
|< does not satisfy the deduction theorem α |< β iff > |< α→ β
(⇒) direction: OK
(⇐) direction: Fails! Let > |< α→ β, i.e., > |= α→ β andα→ β |= 3̆>. The latter is just the triviality α→ β |= >. We donot (in general) get the needed β |= 3̆α.
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 22 / 29
Properties of |<|< does not satisfy contraposition
Classically and modally we have contraposition:I α |= β is equivalent to ¬β |= ¬α
Not so for |<, and proof by contradiction does not hold in general
¬β |< ¬α says that α |= β and ¬α |= 3̆¬β: Every α-world is aβ-world and every ¬α-world can be reached from some ¬β-world
|< does not satisfy the deduction theorem α |< β iff > |< α→ β
(⇒) direction: OK
(⇐) direction: Fails! Let > |< α→ β, i.e., > |= α→ β andα→ β |= 3̆>. The latter is just the triviality α→ β |= >. We donot (in general) get the needed β |= 3̆α.
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 22 / 29
Properties of |<|< does not satisfy contraposition
Classically and modally we have contraposition:I α |= β is equivalent to ¬β |= ¬α
Not so for |<, and proof by contradiction does not hold in general
¬β |< ¬α says that α |= β and ¬α |= 3̆¬β: Every α-world is aβ-world and every ¬α-world can be reached from some ¬β-world
|< does not satisfy the deduction theorem α |< β iff > |< α→ β
(⇒) direction: OK
(⇐) direction: Fails! Let > |< α→ β, i.e., > |= α→ β andα→ β |= 3̆>. The latter is just the triviality α→ β |= >. We donot (in general) get the needed β |= 3̆α.
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 22 / 29
Properties of |<|< does not satisfy contraposition
Classically and modally we have contraposition:I α |= β is equivalent to ¬β |= ¬α
Not so for |<, and proof by contradiction does not hold in general
¬β |< ¬α says that α |= β and ¬α |= 3̆¬β: Every α-world is aβ-world and every ¬α-world can be reached from some ¬β-world
|< does not satisfy the deduction theorem α |< β iff > |< α→ β
(⇒) direction: OK
(⇐) direction: Fails! Let > |< α→ β, i.e., > |= α→ β andα→ β |= 3̆>. The latter is just the triviality α→ β |= >. We donot (in general) get the needed β |= 3̆α.
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 22 / 29
Pertinent Conditional
Definition
α �→ β ≡def (α→ β) ∧ (β → 3̆α)
Theorem
α |< β iff |< α �→ β
Positive paradox: α→ (β → α)
Proposition
6|< α �→ (β �→ α)
Corollary
α 6|< β �→ α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 23 / 29
Pertinent Conditional
Definition
α �→ β ≡def (α→ β) ∧ (β → 3̆α)
Theorem
α |< β iff |< α �→ β
Positive paradox: α→ (β → α)
Proposition
6|< α �→ (β �→ α)
Corollary
α 6|< β �→ α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 23 / 29
Pertinent Conditional
Definition
α �→ β ≡def (α→ β) ∧ (β → 3̆α)
Theorem
α |< β iff |< α �→ β
Positive paradox: α→ (β → α)
Proposition
6|< α �→ (β �→ α)
Corollary
α 6|< β �→ α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 23 / 29
Pertinent Conditional
Definition
α �→ β ≡def (α→ β) ∧ (β → 3̆α)
Theorem
α |< β iff |< α �→ β
Positive paradox: α→ (β → α)
Proposition
6|< α �→ (β �→ α)
Corollary
α 6|< β �→ α
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 23 / 29
Properties of |<Modus Ponens
|< α, |< α→ β
|< β
Non-Monotonicity: For |<, the monotonicity rule fails:
α |< β, γ |= α
γ |< β
Substitution of Equivalents
Transitivity: If the underlying logic is at least S4
α |< β, β |< γ
α |< γ
α |< β, α |< β �→ γ
α |< γ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 24 / 29
Properties of |<Modus Ponens
|< α, |< α→ β
|< β
Non-Monotonicity: For |<, the monotonicity rule fails:
α |< β, γ |= α
γ |< β
Substitution of Equivalents
Transitivity: If the underlying logic is at least S4
α |< β, β |< γ
α |< γ
α |< β, α |< β �→ γ
α |< γ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 24 / 29
Properties of |<Modus Ponens
|< α, |< α→ β
|< β
Non-Monotonicity: For |<, the monotonicity rule fails:
α |< β, γ |= α
γ |< β
Substitution of Equivalents
Transitivity: If the underlying logic is at least S4
α |< β, β |< γ
α |< γ
α |< β, α |< β �→ γ
α |< γ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 24 / 29
Properties of |<Modus Ponens
|< α, |< α→ β
|< β
Non-Monotonicity: For |<, the monotonicity rule fails:
α |< β, γ |= α
γ |< β
Substitution of Equivalents
Transitivity: If the underlying logic is at least S4
α |< β, β |< γ
α |< γ
α |< β, α |< β �→ γ
α |< γ
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 24 / 29
Outline
1 Logical PreliminariesModal Logic
2 Pertinent EntailmentInfra-Modal EntailmentPropertiesExamples
3 Conclusion
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 25 / 29
‘Paraconsistent’ Character of |<
Example
p: “Mars orbits the Sun”; q: “a red teapot is orbiting Mars”
Background assumption:p-worlds are ‘preferred’
B = {¬p → 2¬p}
M :
¬p, qw2 p, q w3
¬p,¬qw1 p,¬q w4
Premiss compatible with B: p ∧ q |< p; p |< p ∨ q; p |< >
Premiss incompatible with B: ¬p ∧3p 6|< ¬p; ⊥ 6|< p; 2p 6|< 2p ∨¬q
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 26 / 29
‘Paraconsistent’ Character of |<
Example
p: “Mars orbits the Sun”; q: “a red teapot is orbiting Mars”
Background assumption:p-worlds are ‘preferred’
B = {¬p → 2¬p}
M :
¬p, qw2 p, q w3
¬p,¬qw1 p,¬q w4
Premiss compatible with B: p ∧ q |< p; p |< p ∨ q; p |< >
Premiss incompatible with B: ¬p ∧3p 6|< ¬p; ⊥ 6|< p; 2p 6|< 2p ∨¬q
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 26 / 29
‘Paraconsistent’ Character of |<
Example
p: “Mars orbits the Sun”; q: “a red teapot is orbiting Mars”
Background assumption:p-worlds are ‘preferred’
B = {¬p → 2¬p}
M :
¬p, qw2 p, q w3
¬p,¬qw1 p,¬q w4
Premiss compatible with B: p ∧ q |< p; p |< p ∨ q; p |< >
Premiss incompatible with B: ¬p ∧3p 6|< ¬p; ⊥ 6|< p; 2p 6|< 2p ∨¬q
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 26 / 29
‘Paraconsistent’ Character of |<
Example
p: “Mars orbits the Sun”; q: “a red teapot is orbiting Mars”
Background assumption:p-worlds are ‘preferred’
B = {¬p → 2¬p}
M :
¬p, qw2 p, q w3
¬p,¬qw1 p,¬q w4
Premiss compatible with B: p ∧ q |< p; p |< p ∨ q; p |< >
Premiss incompatible with B: ¬p ∧3p 6|< ¬p; ⊥ 6|< p; 2p 6|< 2p ∨¬q
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 26 / 29
Pertinence and Causation
Example
s: “the turkey is shot”; a: “it is alive”; w : “the turkey is walking”
Background assumption:
B = {w → a, s → ¬a,3s}
M :
¬s, a,¬ww2
¬s, a,w w3
¬s,¬a,¬ww1
s,¬a,¬w w4
Question: Is α the pertinent cause of β?
¬a ∧ ¬w |< ¬a ; ¬a ∧ ¬w 6|< ¬w
a ∧2¬s 6|< a ; a ∧23s |< a
s 6|< ¬a ; s ∨ ¬a |< ¬a
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 27 / 29
Pertinence and Causation
Example
s: “the turkey is shot”; a: “it is alive”; w : “the turkey is walking”
Background assumption:
B = {w → a, s → ¬a,3s}
M :
¬s, a,¬ww2
¬s, a,w w3
¬s,¬a,¬ww1
s,¬a,¬w w4
Question: Is α the pertinent cause of β?
¬a ∧ ¬w |< ¬a ; ¬a ∧ ¬w 6|< ¬w
a ∧2¬s 6|< a ; a ∧23s |< a
s 6|< ¬a ; s ∨ ¬a |< ¬a
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 27 / 29
Pertinence and Causation
Example
s: “the turkey is shot”; a: “it is alive”; w : “the turkey is walking”
Background assumption:
B = {w → a, s → ¬a,3s}
M :
¬s, a,¬ww2
¬s, a,w w3
¬s,¬a,¬ww1
s,¬a,¬w w4
Question: Is α the pertinent cause of β?
¬a ∧ ¬w |< ¬a ; ¬a ∧ ¬w 6|< ¬w
a ∧2¬s 6|< a ; a ∧23s |< a
s 6|< ¬a ; s ∨ ¬a |< ¬a
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 27 / 29
Pertinence and Causation
Example
s: “the turkey is shot”; a: “it is alive”; w : “the turkey is walking”
Background assumption:
B = {w → a, s → ¬a,3s}
M :
¬s, a,¬ww2
¬s, a,w w3
¬s,¬a,¬ww1
s,¬a,¬w w4
Question: Is α the pertinent cause of β?
¬a ∧ ¬w |< ¬a ; ¬a ∧ ¬w 6|< ¬w
a ∧2¬s 6|< a ; a ∧23s |< a
s 6|< ¬a ; s ∨ ¬a |< ¬a
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 27 / 29
Pertinence and Causation
Example
s: “the turkey is shot”; a: “it is alive”; w : “the turkey is walking”
Background assumption:
B = {w → a, s → ¬a,3s}
M :
¬s, a,¬ww2
¬s, a,w w3
¬s,¬a,¬ww1
s,¬a,¬w w4
Question: Is α the pertinent cause of β?
¬a ∧ ¬w |< ¬a ; ¬a ∧ ¬w 6|< ¬w
a ∧2¬s 6|< a ; a ∧23s |< a
s 6|< ¬a ; s ∨ ¬a |< ¬a
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 27 / 29
Pertinence and Causation
Example
s: “the turkey is shot”; a: “it is alive”; w : “the turkey is walking”
Background assumption:
B = {w → a, s → ¬a,3s}
M :
¬s, a,¬ww2
¬s, a,w w3
¬s,¬a,¬ww1
s,¬a,¬w w4
Question: Is α the pertinent cause of β?
¬a ∧ ¬w |< ¬a ; ¬a ∧ ¬w 6|< ¬w
a ∧2¬s 6|< a ; a ∧23s |< a
s 6|< ¬a ; s ∨ ¬a |< ¬a
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 27 / 29
Pertinence and Causation
Example
s: “the turkey is shot”; a: “it is alive”; w : “the turkey is walking”
Background assumption:
B = {w → a, s → ¬a,3s}
M :
¬s, a,¬ww2
¬s, a,w w3
¬s,¬a,¬ww1
s,¬a,¬w w4
Question: Is α the pertinent cause of β?
¬a ∧ ¬w |< ¬a ; ¬a ∧ ¬w 6|< ¬w
a ∧2¬s 6|< a ; a ∧23s |< a
s 6|< ¬a ; s ∨ ¬a |< ¬a
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 27 / 29
Conclusion
Contributions
Semantic approach to the notion of pertinence
Pertinence captured in a simple modal logic
Whole spectrum of pertinent entailments, ranging between ≡ and |=
We restrict some paradoxes avoided by relevance logics
|< possesses other non-classical properties
Ongoing and Future Work
Other infra-modal entailment relations
Supra-modal entailment: prototypical and venturous reasoning
Relationship with contexts such as obligations, beliefs, etc
Pertinent subsumptions in Description Logics
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 28 / 29
Conclusion
Contributions
Semantic approach to the notion of pertinence
Pertinence captured in a simple modal logic
Whole spectrum of pertinent entailments, ranging between ≡ and |=
We restrict some paradoxes avoided by relevance logics
|< possesses other non-classical properties
Ongoing and Future Work
Other infra-modal entailment relations
Supra-modal entailment: prototypical and venturous reasoning
Relationship with contexts such as obligations, beliefs, etc
Pertinent subsumptions in Description Logics
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 28 / 29
Reference
K. Britz, J. Heidema, I. Varzinczak. Pertinent Reasoning. Workshopon Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR), 2010.
Thank you!
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 29 / 29
Reference
K. Britz, J. Heidema, I. Varzinczak. Pertinent Reasoning. Workshopon Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR), 2010.
Thank you!
Britz, Heidema, Varzinczak (Meraka,Unisa) Pertinence Construed Modally 29 / 29
top related