In this paper we investigate nonmonotonic 'modes of inference'. Our approach uses modal (conditional) logic to establish a uniform framework in which to study nonmonotonic consequence. We consider a particular mode of inference which employs a majority-based account of default reasoning—one which differs from the more familiar preferential accounts—and show how modal logic supplies a framework which facilitates analysis of, and comparison with more traditional formulations of nonmonotonic consequence.
Subjects: 3.3 Nonmonotonic Reasoning; 11. Knowledge Representation
Submitted: Apr 13, 2008