Modelling phenomena and dynamic logic of phenomena

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics

Volumn 22, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 53-82

  Kovalerchuk, Boris ^a   Perlovsky, Leonid ^b   Wheeler, Gregory ^c  

^a CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

complex phenomena; dynamic logic; model generality; model simplicity; model uncertainty; similarity measure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866035956     PISSN: 11663081     EISSN: 19585780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2012.682439     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Arlo-Costa, H. (2002). First order extensions of classical systems of modal logic: The role of the Barcan schémas. Studia Logica, 71(1), 87-118.
2. Balbiani, P. (2007). Propositional dynamic logic. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dynamic/
3. Baltag, A. (1999). A logic of epistemic actions. In W. van der Hoek, J.-J. Meyer & C. Witteveen (Eds.), Foundations and applications ofcollective agent-based systems, proceedings ofthe Workshop at the 11th European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Computation, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Available online in ps at http://www.irit.fr/ACTIVITES/LILaC/Pers/Pauly/GameLogic/ Reader2/8.ps
4. Baltag, A., & Moss, L.S. (2007). Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese, 139, 165-224.
5. Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2008). A dynamic-logical perspective on quantum behavior. Studia Logica, 89, 187-211.
6. Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2009). Normative framework for normative system change. In Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
7. Chellas, B. (1980). Modal logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. De Raedt, L. (2006). From inductive logic programming to multi-relational data mining. Berlin: Springer.
9. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., & The ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Haenni, R., Romeijn, J.-W., Wheeler, G., & Williamson, J. (2011). Probabilistic logics and probabilistic networks (Vol. 350). Berlin: Springer.
11. Hansel, G. (1966). Sur le nombre des fonctions Booléennes monotones de n variables. Compte-rendu de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris, 262(20), 1088-1090.
12. Harel, D., Kozen, D., & Tiuryn, J. (2000). Dynamic logic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Hendricks, V., & Symons, J. (2006). Epistemic logic. Stanford encyclopedia ofphilosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic- epistemic/
14. Hintikka, J., & Halonen, I. (1998). Epistemic logic. In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 752-753). London: Routledge.
15. Hodes, W. (2005). First-order model theory. Stanford encyclopedia ofphilosophy. Available at http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/
16. Katsikopoulos, K.V., & Martignon, L. (2006). Naive heuristics for paired comparison: Some results on their relative accuray. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 488-494.
17. King, J.C. (2004). Context dependent quantifiers and donkey anaphora. In M. Ezcurdia, R. Stainton, & C. Viger (Eds.), New essays in the philosophy oflanguage, supplement to Canadian Journal of Philosophy (Vol. 30, pp. 97-127). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary Press.
18. Kovalerchuk, B., & Delizy, F. (2005). Visual data mining using monotone Boolean functions. In B. Kovalerchuk & J. Schwing (Eds.), Visual and spatial analysis: Advances in data mining, reasoning, and problem solving (pp. 387-406). Berlin: Springer.
19. Kovalerchuk, B., Triantaphyllou, E., Despande, A., & Vityaev, E. (1996). Interactive learning of monotone Boolean function. Information Sciences, 94,87-118.
20. Kovalerchuk, B., & Vityaev, E. (2000). Data mining in finance. Advances in relational and hybrid methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
21. Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement. New York: Academic Press.
22. Kyburg, H.E.Jr., & Teng, C.M. (2001). Uncertain inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Kyburg, H.E., Jr., & Teng, C.M. (2002). The logic of risky knowledge (Vol. 67). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24. Kyburg, H.E.Jr., Teng, C.M., & Wheeler, G. (2007). Conditionals and consequences. Journal ofApplied Logic, 5(4), 638-650.
25. Leitgeb, H., & Segerberg, K. (2007). Dynamic doxastic logic: Why, how, and where to? Synthese, 155, 167-190.
26. Makinson, D., & van der Torre, L. (2000). Input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29, 383-408.
27. Makinson, D., & van der Torre, L. (2001). Constraints for input/output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 30, 155-185.
28. Malcev, A. (1973). Algebraic systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
29. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Perlovsky, L. (2000). Neural networks and intellect: Using model-based concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Perlovsky, L. (2006). Toward physics of the mind: Concepts, emotions, consciousness, and symbols. Physics ofLife Review, 3,23-55.
32. Perlovsky, L. (2007). Evolution of language, consciousness, and cultures. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 8,25-39.
33. Pitt, D. (2008). Mental representation. Stanford encyclopedia ofphilosophy. Available at http://plato.stan-ford.edu/entries/mental- representation/
34. Pojman, P. (2009). Ernst Mach. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford. edu/entries/ernst-mach/
35. Poole, D. (1988). A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 36,27-47.
36. Pratt, V. (1978). A practical decision method for propositional dynamic logic. In Proceedings ofthe 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (pp. 326-337). New York: ACM.
37. Reiter, R. (1980). A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13,81-132.
38. Segerberg, K., & Meyer, J.-J. (2009). The logic of action. Stanford encyclopedia ofphilosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic- action/.
39. Spirites, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Teng, C., & Wheeler, G. (2010). Robustness of evidential probability. In E. Clarke & A. Voronkov (Eds.), Short paper proceedings of International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR-16). Berlin: Springer.
41. van Benthem, J. (1996). Exploring logical dynamics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
42. van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17 (2), 129-155.
43. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic (Vol. 337). Berlin: Springer.
44. van Gelder, T. (1995). What might cognition be, if not computation? Journal ofPhilosophy, 91, 345381.
45. Wheeler, G. (2010). AGM belief revision in monotone modal logics. In E. Clarke & A. Voronkov (Eds.), Short paper proceedings of International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR-16). Berlin: Springer.
46. Wheeler, G., & Alberti, M. (2011). NO revision and NO contraction. Minds and Machines, 21(3), 411-430.