HUSCAP logo Hokkaido Univ. logo

Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
Graduate School of Information Science and Technology / Faculty of Information Science and Technology >
Peer-reviewed Journal Articles, etc >


Files in This Item:
JCGR25-5_570-578.pdf368.92 kBPDFView/Open
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: 対立の弁証法的解決に向けた妥協的推論の形式化
Other Titles: Formalizing Reasoning for Compromise toward Dialectical Conflict Resolution
Authors: 木藤, 浩之1 Browse this author
栗原, 正仁2 Browse this author →KAKEN DB
片上, 大輔3 Browse this author
新田, 克己4 Browse this author
Authors(alt): Kido, Hiroyuki1
Kurihara, Masahito2
Katagami, Daisuke3
Nitta, Katsumi4
Keywords: argumentation
dialectical thought
Issue Date: 2010
Publisher: 人工知能学会
Journal Title: 人工知能学会論文誌
Volume: 25
Issue: 5
Start Page: 570
End Page: 578
Publisher DOI: 10.1527/tjsai.25.570
Abstract: Argumentation in artificial intelligence, often called computational dialectics, is rooted in Aristotle's idea of evaluating argumentation in a dialogue model. In contrast, Chinese traditional philosophy regards dialectics as a style of reasoning that focuses on contradictions and how to resolve them, transcend them or find the truth in both. A compromise is considered one way to resolve conflicts dialectically. In this paper, we formalize reasoning intended to derive a compromise. Both the reasoning and the compromise are defined on abstract lattices procedurally and declaratively, respectively. We prove that the reasoning is sound and complete with respect to the compromise. Then we define the concrete and sound algorithm for the reasoning on the lattice characterized by definite clausal language and generalized subsumption. Under some conditions, the reasoning offers a unified way to reason rationally whether a set of the premises is consistent or not. Such reasoning is outside the scope of logics that have the principle of explosion. Further, the compromise has a unique logical setting compared with other types of reasoning such as deduction, induction, and abduction. We incorporate the reasoning into arguments, and illustrate that the use of arguments with compromise contributes to realizing a compromise-based conflict resolution in argumentation.
Type: article
Appears in Collections:情報科学院・情報科学研究院 (Graduate School of Information Science and Technology / Faculty of Information Science and Technology) > 雑誌発表論文等 (Peer-reviewed Journal Articles, etc)

Submitter: 栗原 正仁

Export metadata:

OAI-PMH ( junii2 , jpcoar )

MathJax is now OFF:


 - Hokkaido University