I Many-valued inference possible: extant?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    fuzzy logic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the possibility of creating a many-valued logic system that allows for implications that weaken truth values based on the complexity of reasoning. A proposed model suggests defining an implication relation that modifies truth values according to a parameter k, with specific rules for transitivity and negation. Challenges include avoiding inconsistencies from multiple inference paths leading to different truth values and the need for a temporal aspect to differentiate between inference paths. The conversation also touches on fuzzy logic, with participants noting that existing fuzzy systems do not adequately reflect the proposed weakening of truth values. The goal is to better model human reasoning, which tends to assign lower confidence to more abstract conclusions.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
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 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 jedishrfu

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
8K
Replies
30
Views
2K
Back
Top