Four-valued epistemic status for ground assertions.
Queries both a sentence and its explicit negation (not S) and returns a verdict map with :verdict, :for, :against, and justification evidence.
Two query modes:
ask? (ground facts + prover registry, no rule expansion)query (rules fire, bounded)Callers who want rule expansion MUST pass {:max-depth N} explicitly. A silent default depth would turn derivable facts into false :unknown.
Four-valued epistemic status for ground assertions.
Queries both a sentence and its explicit negation (not S) and returns
a verdict map with :verdict, :for, :against, and justification evidence.
Two query modes:
- No opts: uses `ask?` (ground facts + prover registry, no rule expansion)
- With opts containing :max-depth: uses `query` (rules fire, bounded)
Callers who want rule expansion MUST pass {:max-depth N} explicitly.
A silent default depth would turn derivable facts into false :unknown.(argue kb asent context)(argue kb asent context opts)Four-valued epistemic query over a ground assertion.
(argue kb asent context) (argue kb asent context opts)
Queries both asent and (not asent) and returns:
{:verdict :true/:false/:unknown/:contradiction :for <query results for asent, when provable> :against <query results for (not asent), when provable> :for-why <justification for asent, when stored+believed> :against-why <justification for (not asent), when stored+believed>}
Without opts: uses ask?/ask (no rule expansion).
With {:max-depth N}: uses query?/query (rules fire, bounded).
Callers who want rule expansion MUST pass :max-depth explicitly.
In the :contradiction case, a simple argumentation stub attempts resolution: a :monotonic justification beats a :default one.
Four-valued epistemic query over a ground assertion.
(argue kb asent context)
(argue kb asent context opts)
Queries both `asent` and `(not asent)` and returns:
{:verdict :true/:false/:unknown/:contradiction
:for <query results for asent, when provable>
:against <query results for (not asent), when provable>
:for-why <justification for asent, when stored+believed>
:against-why <justification for (not asent), when stored+believed>}
Without opts: uses `ask?`/`ask` (no rule expansion).
With {:max-depth N}: uses `query?`/`query` (rules fire, bounded).
Callers who want rule expansion MUST pass :max-depth explicitly.
In the :contradiction case, a simple argumentation stub attempts
resolution: a :monotonic justification beats a :default one.cljdoc builds & hosts documentation for Clojure/Script libraries
| Ctrl+k | Jump to recent docs |
| ← | Move to previous article |
| → | Move to next article |
| Ctrl+/ | Jump to the search field |