Beliefs supported by binary arguments

References

• Arnold, A. & Niwinski, D. (2001). Rudiments of μ-calculus . Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Artemov, S. N. (2008). The logic of justification. Review of Symbolic Logic , 1 (4), 477–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artemov, S. N. , & Nogina, E. (2005). Introducing justification into epistemic logic. Journal of Logic and Computation , 15 (6), 1059–1073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltag, A. , Bezhanishvili, N. , Özgün, A. & Smets, S. (2016a). Justified belief and the topology of evidence. In Väänänen, J. A. , Hirvonen, Å , & de Queiroz, R. J. G. B. (Eds.) Logic, Language, Information, and Computation -– 23rd International Workshop WoLLIC 2016. Proceedings volume . Lecture notes in computer science. (pp. 83–103). Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Baltag, A. , Bezhanishvili, N. , Özgün, A. , & Smets, S. (2016b). Justified belief and the topology of evidence. Technical Report PP-2016-21, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation. Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Baltag, A. , Fiutek, V. & Smets, S. (2016). Beliefs and evidence in justification models. Beklemishev, D.L. , & Mate, A. (Eds.), Advances in modal logic . College Publications. (pp. 156–176)
   Google Scholar
• Baltag, A. , Renne, B. , & Smets, S. (2012). The logic of justified belief change, soft evidence and defeasible knowledge. 19th Workshop on Logic. Language, Information and Computation , 7456 , 168–190.
   Google Scholar
• Baltag, A. , Renne, B. , & Smets, S. (2014). The logic of justified belief, explicit knowledge and conclusive evidence. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 165 (1), 49–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltag, A. , & Smets, S. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. Texts in logic and games , 3 , 9–58.
   Google Scholar
• Baltag, A. , & Smets, S. (2006a). Conditional doxastic models: A qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. In G. Mints & R. de Queiroz (Eds.), Proceedings WOLLIC 2006, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science , Vol. 165 (pp. 5–21).
   Google Scholar
• Baltag, A. , & Smets, S. (2006b). Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In Bonanno, W.G. , & van der Hoek, W. (Eds.), Proceedings 7th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision (LOFT 2006) (pp. 11–16). Liverpool.
   Google Scholar
• Blackburn, P. , de Rijke, M. , & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal logic . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burgess, J. P. (1982). Axioms for tense logic. i. ‘since’ and ‘until’. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic , 23 (4), 367–374.
   Google Scholar
• Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence , 77 , 321–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyrkolbotn, S. (2013). On a formal connection between truth, argumentation and belief. In M. Colinet , S. Katrenko , & R. K. Rendsvig (Eds.), ESSLLI 2012 and ESSLLI 2013 Student Sessions. Selected Papers . Lecture notes in computer science (vol. 8601, pp. 69–90). Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Dyrkolbotn, S. , & Walicki, M. (2014). Propositional discourse logic. Synthese , 191 (5), 863–899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagin, R. , Moses, Y. , Vardi, M. Y. , & Halpern, J. Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge . Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grossi, D. (2010b). On the logic of argumentation theory . Toronto: Proceedings AAMAS 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Grossi, D. (2012). Fixpoints and iterated updates in abstract argumentation. Proceedings of 13th International Conference KR . Rome.
   Google Scholar
• Grossi, D. (2013). Abstract argument games via modal logic. Synthese , 190 , 5–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossi, D. (2010). Argumentation in the view of modal logic. In P. McBurney , I. Rahwan , & S. Parsons (Eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems -- 7th International Workshop, ArgMAS 2010 Revised, Selected and Invited Papers , Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6614, pp. 190–208). Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5\_12
   Google Scholar
• Grossi, D. , & van der Hoek, W. (2014). Justified beliefs by justified arguments. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference KR . Vienna.
   Google Scholar
• Knaster, B. (1928). Un théorème sur les fonctions d’ensembles. Annales de la Société Polonaise de Mathématiques , 6 , 133–134.
   Google Scholar
• Kozen, D. (1983). Results on the propositional mu-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science , 27 , 333–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz, K. (1961). Arithmetik und Logik als Spiele (PhD thesis). Universität Kiel.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzen, P. (1958). Logik und agon . Arti del XII Congresso Internationale de Filosofia, Venezia (pp. 187--194). Reprinted in Lorenzen and Lorenz (1978) (pp. 187–194). Venezia.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzen, P. , & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische logik . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarzentruber, F. , Vesic, S. , & Rienstra, T. (2012). Building an epistemic logic for argumentation . Proceedings JELIA’12 (pp. 359–371). Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Shi, C. (2016). Multi-agent epistemic argumentation logic , ESSLLI 2016 Student Sessionb (pp. 111–122). Bozen-Bolzano.
   Google Scholar
• Shi, C. , Smets, S. , & Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2017). Argument-based belief in topological structures. In J. Lang (Ed.), Proceedings TARK 2017, volume 251 of Electronic proceedings in theoretical computer science (pp. 489–503). Open Publishing Association.
   Google Scholar
• Tarski, A. (1955). A lattice-theoretical theorem and its applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics , 5 (2), 285–309.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revsion. Journal of applied non-classical logics , 12 (2), 129–155.
   Google Scholar
• van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Benthem, J. , Fernández-Duque, D. , & Pacuit, E. (2014). Evidence and plausibility in neighborhood structures. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic , 165 (1), 106–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Benthem, J. , Fernández-Duque, D. , & Pacuit, E. (2012). Evidence logic: A new look at neighborhood structures. In T. Bolander , T. Braüner , S. Ghilardi , & L. Moss (Eds.), Advances in modal logic , ( Vol. 9, pp. 97–118). London: King’s College.
   Google Scholar
• van Ditmarsch, H. , van Der Hoek, W. , & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic . Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Walukiewicz, I. (2000). Completeness of kozen’s axiomatisation of the propositional μ-calculus. Information and Computation , 157 (1–2), 142–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar