“… AB-dispute derivations (as found in the 'Computing Ideal Sceptical Argumentation' paper) are not complete in general…” Are AB-dispute derivations only complete under certain conditions? What conditions?
There musn't be any loops of non-assumption literals (i.e. the argumentation framework must be "positively acyclic" as defined in the 'Computing Ideal Sceptical Argumentation' paper). For example, given an inference rule 'p <- p', then the dispute derivation for '~p' would not "succeed".
No comments:
Post a Comment