This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
teaching:is:diag-rules-solutions [2020/06/09 14:57] Franconi Enrico |
teaching:is:diag-rules-solutions [2023/06/21 09:01] (current) Franconi Enrico |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| ===== 5.7 ===== | ===== 5.7 ===== | ||
| - | (a) The minimal explanations of //get_gun// are { //hunting// } and { //robbing// } . | ||
| - | (b) The minimal explanations of //get_gun ∧ goto_bank// are { // | + | ===== 5.9 ===== |
| - | (c) Observing | + | The minimal conflicts are: { //d// } , { //e//, //g// } and { //h// }. |
| - | | + | |
| + | |||
| + | ===== 5.13 ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The general idea is to make the reliability of the source assumable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | (a) | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | a <- h & reliable_s_1. | ||
| + | d <- c & reliable_s_1. | ||
| + | |||
| + | e <- d & reliable_s_2. | ||
| + | f <- k & reliable_s_2. | ||
| + | z <- g & reliable_s_2. | ||
| + | j <- reliable_s_2. | ||
| + | |||
| + | h <- d & reliable_s_3. | ||
| + | |||
| + | a <- b & e & reliable_s_4. | ||
| + | b <- c & reliable_s_4. | ||
| + | |||
| + | g <- f & j & reliable_s_5. | ||
| + | |||
| + | false <- a & z. | ||
| + | c. | ||
| + | k. | ||
| + | |||
| + | assumable reliable_s_1. | ||
| + | assumable reliable_s_2. | ||
| + | assumable reliable_s_3. | ||
| + | assumable reliable_s_4. | ||
| + | assumable reliable_s_5. | ||
| + | |||
| + | % Try: | ||
| + | % ask false. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | (b) There are two minimal conflicts: \\ | ||
| + | [ //reliable(s< | ||
| + | and \\ | ||
| + | [ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | (d) The only pair of sources that could account for the contradiction are those obtained | ||
| - | (d) { //banking// } and { //robbing// } . | ||
| - | (e) { // | ||