Theory blending: extended algorithmic aspects and examples

  • M. Martinez
  • A. M. H. Abdel-FattahEmail author
  • U. Krumnack
  • D. Gómez-Ramírez
  • A. Smaill
  • T. R. Besold
  • A. Pease
  • M. Schmidt
  • M. Guhe
  • K.-U. Kühnberger


In Cognitive Science, conceptual blending has been proposed as an important cognitive mechanism that facilitates the creation of new concepts and ideas by constrained combination of available knowledge. It thereby provides a possible theoretical foundation for modeling high-level cognitive faculties such as the ability to understand, learn, and create new concepts and theories. Quite often the development of new mathematical theories and results is based on the combination of previously independent concepts, potentially even originating from distinct subareas of mathematics. Conceptual blending promises to offer a framework for modeling and re-creating this form of mathematical concept invention with computational means. This paper describes a logic-based framework which allows a formal treatment of theory blending (a subform of the general notion of conceptual blending with high relevance for applications in mathematics), discusses an interactive algorithm for blending within the framework, and provides several illustrating worked examples from mathematics.


Concept blending Heuristic-driven theory projection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abdel-Fattah, A.M.H., Krumnack, U., Kühnberger, K.U.: The importance of two cognitive mechanisms in analyzing counterfactuals: an implementation-oriented explication. In: Advances in cognitive systems, Baltimore (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander, J.: Blending in Mathematics. Semiotica 2011(187), 1–48 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besold, T.R., Kühnberger, K.U., Plaza, E.: Analogy, amalgams, and concept blending. In: Proceedings of the third annual conference on advances in cognitive systems (ACS 2015), Poster Collection. (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besold, T.R., Plaza, E.: Generalize and blend: concept blending based on generalization, analogy, and amalgams. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computational creativity (ICCC 2015). Brigham Young University (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bou, F., Schorlemmer, M., Corneli, J., Gómez-Ramírez, D., Maclean, E., Smaill, A., Pease, A.: The role of blending in mathematical invention. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on computational creativity (ICCC), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1342 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cicerone, S., Parisi-Presicce, F.: On the complexity of specification morphisms. Theor. Comput. Sci. 189(1–2), 239–248 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colton, S., Ramezani, R., Llano, M.T.: The HR3 discovery system: design decisions and implementation details. In: Kibble, R. (ed.) Proceedings of the 50th anniversary convention of the AISB (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Confalonieri, R., Corneli, J., Pease, A., Plaza, E., Schorlemmer, M.: Using argumentation to evaluate concept blends in combinatorial creativity. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computational creativity (ICCC 2015). Brigham Young University (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coulson, S.: Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diaconescu, R.: Extra theory morphisms for institutions: logical semantics for multi-paradigm languages. Appl. Categ. Struct. 6(4), 427–453 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eppe, M., Maclean, E., Confalonieri, R., Schorlemmer, M., Kutz, O., Plaza, E.: ASP, amalgamation and the conceptual blending workflow. In: Calimeri, F., Ianni, G., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning: 13th international conference, LPNMR 2015, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 9345. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fauconnier, G., Turner, M.: The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gentner, D.: Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn. Sci. 7(2), 155–170 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goguen, J., Andler, D., Ogawa, Y., Okada, M., Watanabe S.: Mathematical models of cognitive space and time. In: Reasoning and cognition: proceedings of the interdisciplinary conference on reasoning and cognition, pp 125–128. Keio University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gómez-Ramírez, D.: Conceptual blending as a creative meta-generator of mathematical concepts: prime ideals and dedekind domains as a blend. In: Besold, T.R., Kühnberger, K.U., Schorlemmer, M., Smaill, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on computational creativity, concept invention, and general intelligence (C3GI), Publications of the Institute of Cognitive Science, vol. 02-2015, pp 1–11. Institute of Cognitive Science (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kutz, O., Neuhaus, F., Mossakowski, T., Codescu, M.: Blending in the hub: Towards a computational concept invention platform. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on computational creativity (ICCC 2015). Jozef Stefan Institute (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lakoff, G., Nuñeź, R.: Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books, New York (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee, M., Barnden, J.: A computational approach to conceptual blending within counterfactuals. cognitive science research papers CSRP-01-10, School of Computer Science. University of Birmingham (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, B., Zook, A., Davis, N., O’ Riedl, M.: Goal-driven conceptual blending: A computational approach for creativity. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on computational creativity (ICCC 2015). University College Dublin (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacNish, C.K., Antoniou, G.: Specification morphisms for nonmonotonic knowledge systems. In: Sattar, A. (ed.) Knowledge representation and reasoning, lecture notes in computer science, vol. 1342, pp 246–254. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manna, Z., Zarba, C.: Combining decision procedures. In: Formal methods at the crossroads: from panacea to foundational support, LNCS 2787, pp 381–422. Springer (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martinez, M., Krumnack, U., Smaill, A., Besold, T.R., Abdel-Fattah, A., Schmidt, M., Gust, H., Kühnberger, K.U., Guhe, M., Pease, A.: Algorithmic aspects of theory blending. In: Aranda-Corral, G., Martın-Mateos, F., Calmet, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and symbolic computation (AISC). LNAI, Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martins, P., Urbanci, T., Pollak, S., Lavrac, N., Cardoso, A.: The good, the bad, and the aha! blends. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computational creativity (ICCC 2015). Brigham Young University (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mossakowski, T., Maeder, C., Codescu, M.: Hets user guide version 0.99 (2014).
  25. 25.
    Pereira, F.C.: Creativity and AI: a conceptual blending approach. applications of cognitive linguistics (ACL). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A note on inductive generalization. Mach. Intell. 5, 153–163 (1970)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schiralli, M., Sinclair, N.: A constructive response to “where mathematics comes from”. Educ. Stud. Math. 52, 79–91 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmidt, M., Krumnack, U., Gust, H., Kühnberger, K.U.: Heuristic-driven theory projection: an overview. In: Computational approaches to analogical reasoning: current trends, studies in computational intelligence, vol. 548, pp 163–194. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veale, T.: Computability as a test on linguistic theories. In: Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. (eds.) Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives. Mouton DeGruyter, The Hague (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veale, T.: A robust computational model of conceptual blending. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on computational creativity (ICCC 2015). University College Dublin (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veale, T., O’Donoghue, D.: Computation and blending. Comput. Linguis. 11 (3–4), 253–282 (2000). special issue on Conceptual BlendingGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xiao, P., Linkola, S.: Vismantic: meaning-making with images. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computational creativity (ICCC 2015). Brigham Young University (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Martinez
    • 1
  • A. M. H. Abdel-Fattah
    • 2
    Email author
  • U. Krumnack
    • 3
  • D. Gómez-Ramírez
    • 3
  • A. Smaill
    • 4
  • T. R. Besold
    • 5
  • A. Pease
    • 6
  • M. Schmidt
    • 3
  • M. Guhe
    • 4
  • K.-U. Kühnberger
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Faculty of ScienceAin Shams UniversityCairoEgypt
  3. 3.Institute of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany
  4. 4.School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  5. 5.The KRDB Research CentreFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  6. 6.School of Science and EngineeringUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations