Advertisement

Paraconsistent Reasoning with Words

  • Alicja S. Szalas
  • Andrzej Szałas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5070)

Abstract

Fuzzy logics are one of the most frequent approaches to model uncertainty and vagueness. In the case of fuzzy modeling, degrees of belief and disbelief sum up to 1, which causes problems in modeling the lack of knowledge and inconsistency. Therefore, so called paraconsistent intuitionistic fuzzy sets have been introduced, where the degrees of belief and disbelief are not required to sum up to 1. The situation when this sum is smaller than 1 reflects the lack of knowledge and its value greater than 1 models inconsistency.

In many applications there is a strong need to guide and interpret fuzzy-like reasoning using qualitative approaches. To achieve this goal in the presence of uncertainty, lack of knowledge and inconsistency, we provide a framework for qualitative interpretation of the results of fuzzy-like reasoning by labeling numbers with words, like true, false, inconsistent, unknown, reflecting truth values of a suitable, usually finitely valued logical formalism.

Keywords

fuzzy logics four-valued logics paraconsistent reasoning reasoning with words 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amo, S., Pais, M.S.: A paraconsistent logic approach for querying inconsistent databases. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 46, 366–386 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atanassov, K.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20, 87–96 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belnap, N.D.: How a computer should think. In: Ryle, G. (ed.) Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, pp. 30–55. Oriel Press, Stocksfield (1977)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belnap, N.D.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Eptein, G., Dunn, J.M. (eds.) Modern Uses of Many Valued Logic, pp. 8–37. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolc, L., Borowik, P.: Many-Valued Logics, 1. Theoretical Foundations. Springer, Berlin (1992)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bolc, L., Coombs, M.J. (eds.): Expert System Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandon, M., Rescher, N.: The Logic of Inconsistency. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1978)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De, S.K., Biswas, R., Roy, A.R.: An application of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in medical diagnosis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 117, 209–213 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois, D., Hadj-Ali, A., Prade, H.: Fuzzy qualitative reasoning with words. In: Wang, P.P. (ed.) Computing with Words, pp. 347–366 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubois, D., Lang, J., Prade, H.: Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning, part 2: logical approaches. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40(1), 203–244 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning, part 1: inference with possibility distributions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40(1), 143–202 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Putting rough sets and fuzzy sets together. In: Słowiński, R. (ed.) Intelligent Decision Support: Handbook of Applications and Advances of the Rough Sets Theory, pp. 203–232. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Fuzzy Sets and Systems. In: Fuzzy Logic CDROM Library, Academic Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: What are fuzzy rules and how to use them. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 84, 169–185 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ebrahim, R.: Fuzzy logic programming. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 117, 215–230 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitting, M.C.: Bilattices in logic programming. In: Epstein, G. (ed.) 20th International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic, pp. 238–247. IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ginsberg, M.: Multivalued logics: a uniform approach to reasoning in AI. Computational Intelligence 4, 256–316 (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guglielmann, R., Ironi, L.: The need for qualitative reasoning in fuzzy modeling: robustness and interpretability issues. In: Proc. of 18th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning, pp. 113–120 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Innocent, P.R., John, R.I.: Computer aidded medical diagnosis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 162, 81–104 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kruse, R., Schwecke, E., Heinsohn, J.: Uncertainty and Vagueness in Knowledge Based Systems. Numerical Methods. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A., Vitória, A.: A four-valued logic for rough set-like approximate reasoning. In: Peters, J.F., Skowron, A., Düntsch, I., Grzymała-Busse, J.W., Orłowska, E., Polkowski, L. (eds.) Transactions on Rough Sets VI. LNCS, vol. 4374, pp. 176–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A., Vitória, A.: Paraconsistent logic programs with four-valued rough sets. In: Chan, C.-C., Grzymala-Busse, J.W., Ziarko, W.P. (eds.) RSCTC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5306, pp. 41–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prade, H.: A quantitative approach to approximate reasoning in rule-based expert systems. In: [6], pp. 199–256 (1988)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rescher, N.: Many-Valued Logic. McGraw-Hill, New York (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shortliffe, E.H.: Computer-Based Medical Consutations: MYCIN. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1976)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shwe, M.A., Middleton, B., Middleton, D.E., Henrion, M., Horvitz, E.J., Lehmann, H.P., Cooper, G.F.: Probabilistic diagnosis using a reformulation of the INTERNIST-1/QMR knowledge base. Methods of Information in Medicine 30(4), 241–255 (1991)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sunderraman, R., Wang, H.: Paraconsistent intuitionistic fuzzy relational data model (2004), http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:cs/0410054
  29. 29.
    Szmidt, E., Kacprzyk, J.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in some medical applications. In: Reusch, B. (ed.) Fuzzy Days 2001. LNCS, vol. 2206, pp. 148–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Urquhart, A.: Many-valued logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3, pp. 71–116. Reidel, Dordrecht (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vitória, A., Szałas, A., Małuszyński, J.: Four-valued extension of rough sets. In: Wang, G., Li, T., Grzymala-Busse, J.W., Miao, D., Skowron, A., Yao, Y. (eds.) RSKT 2008. LNCS, vol. 5009, pp. 106–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vojtáš, P.: Fuzzy logic programming. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 124, 361–370 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zadeh, L.: From computing with numbers to computing with words – from manipulation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 12(3), 307–324 (2002)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 333–353 (1965)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex system and decision processes. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. SMC-3, 28–44 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy logic = computing with words. IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems 4, 103–111 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicja S. Szalas
    • 1
  • Andrzej Szałas
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological Sciences, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEgham, SurreyUK
  2. 2.Institute of InformaticsWarsaw UniversityWarsawPoland
  3. 3.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations