Permalink
Browse files

Fixed citations around

  • Loading branch information...
1 parent 67291d0 commit 3c883e767fdbfeab2c2832e6a50360b67d39d3ec @xcthulhu committed Jan 30, 2011
Showing with 5 additions and 5 deletions.
  1. +5 −5 zotero.bib
View
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ @article{scott_advice_1970
title = {Advice on modal logic},
volume = {143},
journal = {Philosophical problems in Logic},
- author = {D. Scott},
+ author = {Dana Scott},
year = {1970},
pages = {74}
},
@@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ @article{kyburg_logic_2002
doi = {10.1016/S1571-0661(04)80552-8},
abstract = {Much of our everyday knowledge is risky. This not only includes personal judgments, but the results of measurement, data obtained from references or by report, the results of statistical testing, etc. There are two (often opposed) views in {AI} on how to handle risky empirical knowledge. One view, characterized often by modal or nonmonotonic logics, is that the structure of such knowledge should be captured by the formal logical properties of a set of sentences, if we can just get the logic right. The other view takes probability to be central to the characterization of risky knowledge, but often does not allow for the tentative or corrigible acceptance of a set of sentences. We examine a view, based on [epsilon]-acceptability that combines both probability and modality. A statement is [epsilon]-accepted if the probability of its denial is at most [epsilon], where [epsilon] is taken to be a fixed small parameter as is customary in the practice of statistical testing. We show that given a body of evidence {[Gamma][delta],} the set of [epsilon]-accepted statements {[Gamma][epsilon]} has exactly the logical structure of a classical modal system {EMN,} the smallest classical modal logic E supplemented by the schemata M: [square, open][epsilon]([upper left corner] [phi] [logical and] [psi] [upper right corner]) --{\textgreater} ([square, open][epsilon] [phi] [logical and] [square, open][epsilon] [psi]) and N: [square, open][epsilon][inverted perpendicular].},
journal = {Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science},
- author = {Jr Kyburg and Choh Man Teng},
+ author = {Henry E. Kyburg and Choh Man Teng},
month = oct,
year = {2002},
keywords = {[epsilon]-acceptability, risky knowledge, statistical testing},
@@ -2413,7 +2413,7 @@ @article{kyburg_logic_2002-1
doi = {10.1016/S1571-0661(04)80552-8},
abstract = {Much of our everyday knowledge is risky. This not only includes personal judgments, but the results of measurement, data obtained from references or by report, the results of statistical testing, etc. There are two (often opposed) views in {AI} on how to handle risky empirical knowledge. One view, characterized often by modal or nonmonotonic logics, is that the structure of such knowledge should be captured by the formal logical properties of a set of sentences, if we can just get the logic right. The other view takes probability to be central to the characterization of risky knowledge, but often does not allow for the tentative or corrigible acceptance of a set of sentences. We examine a view, based on [epsilon]-acceptability that combines both probability and modality. A statement is [epsilon]-accepted if the probability of its denial is at most [epsilon], where [epsilon] is taken to be a fixed small parameter as is customary in the practice of statistical testing. We show that given a body of evidence {[Gamma][delta],} the set of [epsilon]-accepted statements {[Gamma][epsilon]} has exactly the logical structure of a classical modal system {EMN,} the smallest classical modal logic E supplemented by the schemata M: [square, open][epsilon]([upper left corner] [phi] [logical and] [psi] [upper right corner]) --{\textgreater} ([square, open][epsilon] [phi] [logical and] [square, open][epsilon] [psi]) and N: [square, open][epsilon][inverted perpendicular].},
journal = {Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science},
- author = {Jr Kyburg and Choh Man Teng},
+ author = {Henry E. Kyburg and Choh Man Teng},
month = oct,
year = {2002},
keywords = {[epsilon]-acceptability, risky knowledge, statistical testing},
@@ -2798,7 +2798,7 @@ @incollection{kremer_revision_2009
@book{kyburg_probability_1961,
title = {Probability and the logic of rational belief},
publisher = {Wesleyan University Press},
- author = {Henry Ely Kyburg},
+ author = {Henry E. Kyburg},
year = {1961}
},
@@ -3506,7 +3506,7 @@ @book{kyburg_uncertain_2001
title = {Uncertain inference},
isbn = {9780521001014},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
- author = {Henry Ely Kyburg and Choh Man Teng},
+ author = {Henry E. Kyburg and Choh Man Teng},
year = {2001}
},

0 comments on commit 3c883e7

Please sign in to comment.