Many-valued inference possible: extant?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    fuzzy logic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of developing a type of implication relation within many-valued logic that allows for a weakening of truth values. Participants explore the implications of such a system, particularly in relation to modeling human reasoning and the challenges associated with it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a new implication relation, denoted as ⇒k, which would allow for truth values to be scaled between 0 and 1, suggesting that A⇒kB would yield V(B) = k*V(A).
  • The same participant outlines several rules and conditions for this relation, including a modified transitivity rule and implications for negation.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential need for fine-tuning the system to avoid inconsistencies arising from multiple inference paths leading to different truth values.
  • Another participant suggests that the concept may relate to fuzzy logic, where truth values can be any real number between 0 and 1.
  • A different participant acknowledges the existence of various fuzzy logics but notes that traditional fuzzy logics maintain transitivity and do not accommodate the proposed weakening of truth values based on reasoning length.
  • One participant introduces the idea of fuzzy logic functioning like a hysteresis loop, where truth values remain stable until certain thresholds are crossed.
  • Another participant expresses interest in the relationship between the proposed logic and nerve firing analogs but maintains that it remains fundamentally two-valued.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the feasibility or specifics of the proposed many-valued implication relation. Multiple competing views on the nature of fuzzy logic and its properties are presented, indicating an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the adequacy of existing fuzzy logics to meet the proposed requirements, highlighting limitations in current literature and the need for further exploration of the topic.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
256
Would it be possible to have a type of implication relation that weakens the truth value in a many-valued logic? For instance, a first attempt:
(1) define ⇒k, 0<k<1, ⇒1 ≡ ordinary ⇒ , so that, if the V(.) is the valuation (the assignment of truth value), then A⇒kB gives V(B) = k*V(A).
(2) The rule [A⇒kB &B⇒mC] ⇒ [A⇒(k*m)C] would hold instead of transitivity.
(3) [A⇒kB]⇒[~B⇒k~A]
(4) If A⇒kA, then k=1.
The main problem here would be that either the system would have to either
(a) be extremely fine-tuned to avoid two different inference paths to the same conclusion resulting in two different truth values (inconvenient)
(b) adopt something like V(B) = minimum of truth values of all possible inference paths starting from the axioms (unlikely to work)
(c) make this part of a temporal logic so that two different inference paths would occur at different times, and hence V(B, t0) need not be equal to V(B, t1) (that would end up being trivial),
(d) be inconsistent (unfortunate), or
(e) some variation that I have not thought of.

The reason I would like something like this is that, if one is to model human reasoning, one has the problem that humans put less confidence in conclusions when they are more abstract, i.e., when it takes more steps to arrive at the conclusions. (Perhaps I should be using confidence or preference values instead of truth values, but as far as I can see, these would be equivalent approaches.)
I am open to suggestions. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sounds like you are thinking of fuzzy logic. I don’t know the details, just that the truth value of statements is not true (1) or false (0) but is any real number from 0 to 1.
 
Thanks, Dale, I understand that I am dealing in fuzzy (or "many-valued") logic, but there are many fuzzy logics, and I have not yet seen (but perhaps I'm not looking in the right places) a fuzzy logic which acts like the one I outlined. There are implications that are non-classical, such as the Łukasiewicz implication → such that V( A→B)= min {1-V(A)+V(B)), and others which are usually defined by truth tables. But in all these, implication remains transitive, and are not adequate to correspond to a lessening truth value according to the length of the reasoning chain.
 
Sorry, I am out of my depth on that then. I don’t even know enough about fuzzy logic to recognize that it doesn’t have the properties you are looking for.
 
Ah, well, thanks for trying. Maybe someone who is more familiar with the area will weigh in...
 
Fuzzy logic may act like a hysterisis loop too. It will stay at zero until some threshold value is crossed and then switch to a one. Similarly going from one to zero, it will stay at one until a different threshold value is reached before switching to zero.

I don’t have an explicit reference just from reading about it years ago. Wikipedia has an article that may be worth reading on multi valued logic which might help here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nomadreid
Thanks, jedishrfu, I believe you are referring to the logics which can be used for analogs to nerve firings, no? This is an interesting logic, but remains a two-valued logic.
I know the Wiki article (and I have some books on multi-valued logics), but the type of logic which I am looking for is not described in any of these sources.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K