Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through Argument Theory Change

Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change (ATC) encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees-arguments as nodes and attacks as edges-as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies.

Two important but almost never related beliefs

Engelmann believes in two general strong beliefs. On one side, Engelmann believes in probabilistic skepticism. That the existence has its maximum probability or there is no existence at all is not possible. The other probabilities of existence are always possible. On the other hand, instead of elements that constitute a beginning arrived at by an unknown division, the Gestalt theory begins with wholes or Gestalten. These Gestalten can be divided in parts but each part can be only a part of his specific Gestalt. The majority of probabilistic skeptics and the majority of Gestalt theory followers do not believe they can be together accepted. On the contrary Engelmann is a member of a small group that both beliefs occur simultaneously. Bibace`s questions were each answered by Engelmann. In some questions Engelmann harmonize with Bibace, in others they disagree.