Talk:Non-monotonic logic

Article

This article is impenetrable to anyone who doesn't already know what "monotonic logic" is, and the article on "monotonic logic" is equally opaque. Arguably, this article is useless. How can it be improved? Examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.156.145.5 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Seven years later and I have to agree, it remains completely impenetrable and largely useless. It requires someone who understands the concept to break it down in simple language. At the moment it's pretty much an archetypal example of how not to write a Wikipedia article. 2.121.223.8 (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Logic Definition

This used to be the first paragraph of the article:

When declaiming a line of reasoning, it is the custom to present a case for the object of discourse. During the argument, the propositions are steadily built up, monotonically increasing. But, in non-monotonic logic, the propositions are defeasible; that is, if an impasse is reached, the propositions can be abandoned; thus the number of valid propositions no longer has to increase steadily, but can even decrease and further fluctuate.

And this used to be the second one:

This form of reasoning can be used to model thought, as in the scientific method, where hypothetical explanations can be abandoned in the light of further evidence from observation, inference, and experiment.

My point is that "non-monotonic logics" are formal logics, that is, are a way of formalizing the more general issue of "non-monotonic reasoning", which should have a separate article (but currently has not). Since the non-monotonic logics are family of logics, I have changed the incipit of the article with the formal logic definition of a non-monotonic logic (i.e., a logic not having the monotonicity property).Paolo Liberatore 11:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Semantics

Anyone feel like adding some discussion of the semantics and representations theorems for non-monotonic logic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.170.218 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

---

It seems that my Model and Information pages could offer an input for informal semantics from psychological perspective. Reading other pages might be necessary for better understanding, though. I am also adding weights to new vs. old and transformation of successful methods into more abstract symbols that may result in dropping some less abstract symbols later. I have also recently published a book "My Stories" you might be interested to read.

I am not often intervening at Wikipedia, but if my suggestion results in a discussion here, please invite me. The best place to invite me, would be discussion group related to my website.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)