Justification logic - a short introduction

Similar documents
Update As Evidence: Belief Expansion

Justifications, Ontology, and Conservativity

On the unusual effectiveness of proof theory in epistemology

S4LP and Local Realizability

On the Complexity of the Reflected Logic of Proofs

Lower Complexity Bounds in Justification Logic

Justification logic for constructive modal logic

Explicit Logics of Knowledge and Conservativity

Realizing Public Announcements by Justifications

An Introduction to Modal Logic III

An Introduction to Modal Logic V

Probabilistic Justification Logic

Systems of modal logic

A Brief Introduction to Justification Logic , Peking University

Informal Statement Calculus

The Realization Theorem for S5 A Simple, Constructive Proof

TR : Possible World Semantics for First Order LP

TR : Tracking Evidence

The Modal Logic of Pure Provability

TR : The Logic of Justification

Justification Logics, Logics of Knowledge, and Conservativity

A Quantified Logic of Evidence

Přednáška 12. Důkazové kalkuly Kalkul Hilbertova typu. 11/29/2006 Hilbertův kalkul 1

Paraconsistent Logic, Evidence, and Justification

1. Propositional Calculus

Conservativity for Logics of Justified Belief: Two Approaches

The Logic of Proofs, Semantically

First-Order Logic. 1 Syntax. Domain of Discourse. FO Vocabulary. Terms

Logic: The Big Picture

Marie Duží

Comparing Justified and Common Knowledge

Lecture Notes on Classical Modal Logic

A Syntactic Realization Theorem for Justification Logics

Propositional Logic: Syntax

On Epistemic Logic with Justification

Inverting Proof Systems for Secrecy under OWA

Mathematics 114L Spring 2018 D.A. Martin. Mathematical Logic

Logic. Propositional Logic: Syntax

TR : Binding Modalities

Modal Logics. Most applications of modal logic require a refined version of basic modal logic.

Logic. Propositional Logic: Syntax. Wffs

A canonical model construction for intuitionistic distributed knowledge

Axiomatic characterization of the AGM theory of belief revision in a temporal logic

Today. Next week. Today (cont d) Motivation - Why Modal Logic? Introduction. Ariel Jarovsky and Eyal Altshuler 8/11/07, 15/11/07

Gödel s Incompleteness Theorems

1. Propositional Calculus

Provability as a Modal Operator with the models of PA as the Worlds

Peano Arithmetic. CSC 438F/2404F Notes (S. Cook) Fall, Goals Now

Justifications for Common Knowledge

Realization Using the Model Existence Theorem

The Syntax of First-Order Logic. Marc Hoyois

TR : First-Order Logic of Proofs

Propositional Logics and their Algebraic Equivalents

What is DEL good for? Alexandru Baltag. Oxford University

First-Order Logic First-Order Theories. Roopsha Samanta. Partly based on slides by Aaron Bradley and Isil Dillig

Neighborhood Semantics for Modal Logic Lecture 3

185.A09 Advanced Mathematical Logic

03 Review of First-Order Logic

23.1 Gödel Numberings and Diagonalization

General methods in proof theory for modal logic - Lecture 1

Modal Probability Logic

Introduction to Metalogic

Applied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw

First Order Logic (FOL) 1 znj/dm2017

Examples: P: it is not the case that P. P Q: P or Q P Q: P implies Q (if P then Q) Typical formula:

Math 267a - Propositional Proof Complexity. Lecture #1: 14 January 2002

TR : Tableaux for the Logic of Proofs

Propositional and Predicate Logic - XIII

Bound and Free Variables. Theorems and Proofs. More valid formulas involving quantifiers:

09 Modal Logic II. CS 3234: Logic and Formal Systems. October 14, Martin Henz and Aquinas Hobor

Formal Epistemology: Lecture Notes. Horacio Arló-Costa Carnegie Mellon University

Implementing analytic tableaux for justification logic Niels Steenbergen

Marketing Impact on Diffusion in Social Networks

overview overview proof system for basic modal logic proof systems advanced logic lecture 8 temporal logic using temporal frames

Decision Theory and the Logic of Provability

First Order Logic: Syntax and Semantics

CHAPTER 11. Introduction to Intuitionistic Logic

COMP219: Artificial Intelligence. Lecture 19: Logic for KR

Ahmad KARIMI A NON-SELF-REFERENTIAL PARADOX IN EPISTEMIC GAME THEORY

Description Logics. Foundations of Propositional Logic. franconi. Enrico Franconi

Nonclassical logics (Nichtklassische Logiken)

Predicate Logic - Deductive Systems

Basic Algebraic Logic

Propositional Logic: Deductive Proof & Natural Deduction Part 1

127: Lecture notes HT18. Week 3. D.I. Semantic and proof-theoretic approaches to consequence (LfP 1.5)

Properties of Relational Logic

cse371/mat371 LOGIC Professor Anita Wasilewska Fall 2018

Todays programme: Propositional Logic. Program Fac. Program Specification

Towards A Multi-Agent Subset Space Logic

Graph Theory and Modal Logic

Justified Belief Change

Modal Logic XX. Yanjing Wang

Outline. 1 Background and Aim. 2 Main results (in the paper) 3 More results (not in the paper) 4 Conclusion

The Curry-Howard Isomorphism

Logical Omniscience as a Computational Complexity Problem

Knowing Values and Public Inspection

Modal logics: an introduction

Part II Logic and Set Theory

CS206 Lecture 21. Modal Logic. Plan for Lecture 21. Possible World Semantics

A simplified proof of arithmetical completeness theorem for provability logic GLP

Transcription:

Institute of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics University of Bern Bern, Switzerland January 2013

Modal Logic A

Modal Logic A A B and

Modal Logic A A B B and thus

Modal Logic A A B B and thus A (A B) B

Justification Logic A since r

Justification Logic A since r A B since s and

Justification Logic A since r A B since s B since s r and thus

Justification Logic A since r A B since s B since s r and thus r:a s:(a B) s r:b

Syntax of the Logic of Proofs Logic The logic of proofs LP CS is the justification counterpart of the modal logic S4. Justification terms Tm t ::= x c (t t) (t + t)!t Formulas L j A ::= p A (A A) t:a

Axioms for LP all propositional tautologies t:(a B) (s:a (t s):b) (J) t:a (t + s):a, s:a (t + s):a (+) t:a A (jt) t:a!t:t:a (j4)

Deductive System Constant specification A constant specification CS is any subset CS {(c, A) c is a constant and A is an axiom}. The deductive system LP CS consists of the above axioms and the rules of modus ponens and axiom necessitation. A A B B (c, A) CS c:a

A Justified Version of A B (A B) Assume we are given LP CS with (a, A (A B)) CS and (b, B (A B)) CS. By axiom necessitation we get LP CS a:(a (A B)) and LP CS b:(b (A B)). Using (J) and (MP) we obtain LP CS x:a (a x):(a B) and LP CS y:b (b y):(a B). Finally, from (+) we have LP CS (a x):(a B) (a x + b y):(a B) and LP CS (b y):(a B) (a x + b y):(a B). Using propositional reasoning, we obtain LP CS (x:a y:b) (a x + b y):(a B).

Internalization Definition A constant specification CS for LP is called axiomatically appropriate if for each axiom F of LP, there is a constant c such that (c, F ) CS. Lemma (Internalization) Let CS be an axiomatically appropriate constant specification. For arbitrary formulas A, B 1,..., B n, if B 1,..., B n LPCS A, then there is a term t(x 1,..., x n ) such that x 1 :B 1,..., x n :B n LPCS t(x 1,..., x n ):A for fresh variables x 1,..., x n.

Forgetful Projection Definition (Forgetful projection) The mapping from justified formulas to modal formulas is defined as follows 1 P := P for P atomic; 2 ( A) := A ; 3 (A B) := A B ; 4 (t:a) := A. Lemma (Forgetful projection) For any constant specification CS and any formula F we have LP CS F implies S4 F.

Realization Definition (Realization) A realization is a mapping r from modal formulas to justified formulas such that (r(a)) = A. Definition We say a justification logic LP CS realizes S4 if there is a realization r such that for any formula A we have S4 A implies LP CS r(a).

Realization Theorem Definition (Schematic CS) We say that a constant specification is schematic if it satisfies the following: for each constant c, the set of axioms {A (c, A) CS} consists of all instances of one or several (possibly zero) axiom schemes of LP. Theorem (Realization) Let CS be an axiomatically appropriate and schematic constant specification. There exists a realization r such that for all formulas A S4 A = LP CS r(a).

Arithmetical Semantics Originally, LP CS was developed to provide classical provability semantics for intuitionistic logic. Arithmetical Semantics for LP CS : Justification terms are interpreted as proofs in Peano arithmetic and operations on terms correspond to computable operations on proofs in PA. Int Gödel S4 Realization JL Arithm. sem. CL + proofs

Self-referentiality Definition (Self-referential CS) A constant specification CS is called self-referential if (c, A) CS for some axiom A that contains at least one occurrence of the constant c. S4 and LP CS describe self-referential knowledge. That means if LP CS realizes S4 for some constant specification CS, then that constant specification must be self-referential. Lemma Consider the S4-theorem G := ((P P ) ) and let F be any realization of G. If LP CS F, then CS must be self-referential.

Basic evaluation Definition (Basic Evaluation) A basic evaluation for LP CS is a function: : Prop {0, 1} and : Tm P(L j ), such that 1 F (s t) if (G F ) s and G t for some G 2 F (s + t) if F s or F t 3 F t if (t, F ) CS 4 s:f (!s) if F s

Quasimodel Definition (Quasimodel) A quasimodel is a tuple M = (W, R, ) where W, R W W, and the evaluation maps each world w W to a basic evaluation w. Definition (Truth in quasimodels) M, w p if and only if p w = 1 for p Prop; M, w F G if and only if M, w F or M, w G; M, w F if and only if M, w F ; M, w t:f if and only if F t w.

Model Given M = (W, R, ) and w W, we define w := {F L j M, v F whenever R(w, v)}. Definition (Modular Model) A modular model M = (W, R, ) is a quasimodel with 1 t w w for all t Tm and w W ; (JYB) 2 R is reflexive; 3 R is transitive. Theorem (Soundness and Completeness) For all formulas F L j, LP CS F M F for all modular models M.

Decidability In modal logic, decidability is a consequence of the finite model property. For LP CS the situation is more complicated since CS usually is infinite. Theorem LP CS is decidable for decidable schematic constant specifications CS. A decidable CS is not enough: Theorem There exists a decidable constant specification CS such that LP CS is undecidable.

Complexity Theorem Let CS be a schematic constant specification. The problem whether LP CS t:b belongs to NP.

Complexity Theorem Let CS be a schematic constant specification. The problem whether LP CS t:b belongs to NP. Definition A constant specification is called schematically injective if it is schematic and each constant justifies no more that one axiom scheme. Theorem Let CS be a schematically injective and axiomatically appropriate constant specification. The derivability problem for LP CS is Π p 2 -complete.

Logical Omniscience Modal logic of knowledge contains the epistemic closure principle in the form of axiom (A B) ( A B), which yields an unrealistic feature called logical omniscience whereby an agent knows all logical consequences of her assumptions. Definition A proof system for a logic L is a binary relation E Σ L between words in some alphabet, called proofs, and theorems of L such that 1 E is computable in polynomial time and 2 for all formulas F, L F if and only if there exists y with E(y, F ).

Logical Omniscience II Knowledge assertion A is a provable formula of the form B for S4 or t:b for LP CS with the object of knowledge function OK(A) := B. Definition (Logical Omniscience Test (LOT)) An proof system E for an epistemic logic L is not logically omniscient, or passes LOT, if there exists a polynomial P such that for any knowledge assertion A, there is a proof of OK(A) in E with the size bounded by P (size(a)).

Logical Omniscience III Theorem (S4 is logically omniscient) There is no proof system for S4 that passes LOT unless NP=PSPACE. Theorem (LP CS is not logically omniscient) Let CS be a schematic constant specification. There is a proof system for LP CS that passes LOT.

Dynamic Epistemic Logic

Dynamic Epistemic Logic

Dynamic Epistemic Logic A

Dynamic Epistemic Logic A A

Dynamic Epistemic Logic A A After the announcement of A, the agent believes A, i.e. [A] A

Dynamic Epistemic Logic A A After the announcement of A, the agent believes A, i.e. [A] A Problem The -operator does not tell us whether A is believed because of the announcement or whether A is believed independent of it.

Update as Evidence: the Logic JUP CS for Belief Expansion Fundamental principle After the announcement of A, the announcement itself justifies the agent s belief in A.

Update as Evidence: the Logic JUP CS for Belief Expansion Fundamental principle After the announcement of A, the announcement itself justifies the agent s belief in A. For each formula A we add a new term up(a). Some axioms of JUP: Success: [A] up(a):a

Update as Evidence: the Logic JUP CS for Belief Expansion Fundamental principle After the announcement of A, the announcement itself justifies the agent s belief in A. For each formula A we add a new term up(a). Some axioms of JUP: Success: [A] up(a):a Persistence: t:b [A]t:B. Reduction axioms Minimal change Iterated updates

Basic Properties of JUP CS Lemma (Minimal change) Let t be a term that does not contain up(a) as a subterm. Then JUP CS [A]t:B t:b.

Basic Properties of JUP CS Lemma (Minimal change) Let t be a term that does not contain up(a) as a subterm. Then JUP CS [A]t:B t:b. Lemma (Ramsey I) JUP CS t:(a B) [A](t up(a)):b. Lemma (Ramsey II) Let CS be an axiomatically appropriate constant specification. For each term t there exists a term s such that JUP CS [A]t:B s:(a B).

Thank you!