Static Knowledge vs. Dynamic Argumentation: A Dual Theory Based on Kripke Semantics
This paper establishes a dual theory about knowledge and argumentation. Our idea is rooted at both epistemic logic and argumentation theory, and we aim to merge these two fields, not just in a superficial way but to thoroughly disclose the intrinsic relevance between knowledge and argumentation. Specifically, we define epistemic Kripke models and argument Kripke models as a dual pair, and then work out a two-way generation method between these two types of Kripke models. Such generation is rigorously justified by a duality theorem on modal formulae's invariance. We also provide realistic examples to demonstrate our generation, through which our framework's practical utility gets strongly advocated. We finally propose a philosophical thesis that knowledge is essentially dynamic, and we draw certain connection to Maxwell's demon as well as the well-known proverb "knowledge is power".
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Improving Quality Assessment of Online Reviews UsingFormal Argumentation Theory and Knowledge Graphs
In this extended abstract, we introduce a previously developed framework for the assessment of the quality of product reviews by using formal argumentation theory and machine learning. Then, we outline current developme…
BIG-bench Machine LearningKnowledge GraphsAbstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics
The act of persuasion, a key component in rhetoric argumentation, may be viewed as a dynamics modifier. We extend Dung's frameworks with acts of persuasion among agents, and consider interactions among attack, persuasion…
Abstract ArgumentationNumerical Abstract Persuasion Argumentation for Expressing Concurrent Multi-Agent Negotiations
A negotiation process by 2 agents e1 and e2 can be interleaved by another negotiation process between, say, e1 and e3. The interleaving may alter the resource allocation assumed at the inception of the first negotiation …
Abstract ArgumentationRelationCollective Argumentation: The Case of Aggregating Support-Relations of Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
In many real-life situations that involve exchanges of arguments, individuals may differ on their assessment of which supports between the arguments are in fact justified, i.e., they put forward different support-relatio…
On Strong Equivalence Notions in Logic Programming and Abstract Argumentation
Strong equivalence between knowledge bases ensures the possibility of replacing one with the other without affecting reasoning outcomes, in any given context. This makes it a crucial property in nonmonotonic formalisms. …