Answers.Body: <p>It seems that they are stating that a knowledge base is consistent if and only if it never asserts the truth of both the truth and the negation of a particular P. In other words, a knowledge base is consistent if it never contradicts itself. Their definition allows incomplete knowledge bases to be considered consistent; by their definition, an empty knowledge base is still considered a consistent one.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-10T16:46:33.417Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-10T16:46:33.417Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: eric.mitchell
Answers.Body: <p>I don't think they mean that "known" is equivalent to "entailed" --- in a reasonably complicated system, one cannot be expect to know every sentence which is entailed. Perhaps their example is just a bit lacking.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-11T07:51:59.637Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-05-11T07:51:59.637Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ihaphleas
Answers.Body: <p>I guess in this context "known" means nothing but either $P$ or $\neq P$ is in the KB; further, exactly one of these two needs to be in the KB.</p>
  
  <p>Just think about what it means if $P$ and $\neg P$ are in the KB, then the KB is obviously inconsistent. </p>
  
  <p>And if neither of these two sentences is in the KB, then no information at all can be retrieved from the KB and it remains unclear whether $P$ or $\neg P$ is supposed to be a true statement; thus $P$ is "unknown".</p>
  
  <p>However, if exactly one of these two is in the KB, then one has all information that one needs about $P$ (due to the excluded middle); $P$ is "known" and consistent.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-10T21:18:29.617Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-07-10T21:18:29.617Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BobbyPi
Body: <p>I have a question as to what it means for a knowledge-base to be consistent and complete. I've been looking into non-monotonic logic and different formalisms for it from the book &quot;Knowledge Representation and Reasoning&quot; by Hector Levesque and Ronald J. Brachman, but something is confusing me.</p>
  <p>They say:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>We say a KB exhibits consistent knowledge iff there is no sentence <span class="math-container">$P$</span> such that both <span class="math-container">$P$</span> and <span class="math-container">$\neg P$</span> are known. This is the same as requiring the KB to be satisfiable. We also say that a KB exhibits complete knowledge iff for every <span class="math-container">$P$</span> (within its vocabulary) <span class="math-container">$P$</span> or <span class="math-container">$\neq P$</span> is known</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>They then seem to suggest that by &quot;known&quot; they mean &quot;entailed&quot;. They say</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>In general, of course, knowledge can be incomplete. For example, suppose KB consists of a single sentence (<span class="math-container">$P$</span> or <span class="math-container">$Q$</span>). Then KB does not entail either <span class="math-container">$P$</span> or <span class="math-container">$\neg P$</span>, and so exhibits incomplete knowledge.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>But when dealing with sets of sentences, I usually see these terms as being defined w.r.t. <em>derivability</em> and not <em>entailment</em>.</p>
  <p>So my question is, what exactly do these authors mean by &quot;known&quot; in the above quotes?</p>
  <p>Edit: <a href="https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2259311/168764">this post</a> helped clarify things.</p>
  
Tags: <knowledge-representation><terminology><logic>
Title: What is meant by "known" in "A knowledge-base exhibits complete knowledge if and only if, for every $P$, $P$ or $\neg P$ is known"?
UserDisplayName: Parry
ThreadText: # What is meant by "known" in "A knowledge-base exhibits complete knowledge if and only if, for every $P$, $P$ or $\neg P$ is known"?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-26)
  
  I have a question as to what it means for a knowledge-base to be consistent and complete. I've been looking into non-monotonic logic and different formalisms for it from the book "Knowledge Representation and Reasoning" by Hector Levesque and Ronald J. Brachman, but something is confusing me.
  
  They say:
  
  > We say a KB exhibits consistent knowledge iff there is no sentence $P$ such that both $P$ and $\neg P$ are known. This is the same as requiring the KB to be satisfiable. We also say that a KB exhibits complete knowledge iff for every $P$ (within its vocabulary) $P$ or $\neq P$ is known
  
  They then seem to suggest that by "known" they mean "entailed". They say
  
  > In general, of course, knowledge can be incomplete. For example, suppose KB consists of a single sentence ($P$ or $Q$). Then KB does not entail either $P$ or $\neg P$, and so exhibits incomplete knowledge.
  
  But when dealing with sets of sentences, I usually see these terms as being defined w.r.t. *derivability* and not *entailment*.
  
  So my question is, what exactly do these authors mean by "known" in the above quotes?
  
  Edit: [this post](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2259311/168764) helped clarify things.
  
  **Tags:** knowledge-representation, terminology, logic
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-07-10. Score: 1
  
  It seems that they are stating that a knowledge base is consistent if and only if it never asserts the truth of both the truth and the negation of a particular P. In other words, a knowledge base is consistent if it never contradicts itself. Their definition allows incomplete knowledge bases to be considered consistent; by their definition, an empty knowledge base is still considered a consistent one.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2017-05-11. Score: 0
  
  I don't think they mean that "known" is equivalent to "entailed" --- in a reasonably complicated system, one cannot be expect to know every sentence which is entailed. Perhaps their example is just a bit lacking.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2017-07-10. Score: 0
  
  I guess in this context "known" means nothing but either $P$ or $\neq P$ is in the KB; further, exactly one of these two needs to be in the KB.
  
  Just think about what it means if $P$ and $\neg P$ are in the KB, then the KB is obviously inconsistent.
  
  And if neither of these two sentences is in the KB, then no information at all can be retrieved from the KB and it remains unclear whether $P$ or $\neg P$ is supposed to be a true statement; thus $P$ is "unknown".
  
  However, if exactly one of these two is in the KB, then one has all information that one needs about $P$ (due to the excluded middle); $P$ is "known" and consistent.
  
  
  ---
  
  