Advertisement

Fuzzy Sets pp 49-57 | Cite as

Fuzzy Logic and Non-Distributive Truth Valuations

  • David McGoveran

Abstract

In 1936, Birkhoff and von Neumann were able to show that a non-distributive, orthocomplemented, modular lattice was equivalent to the traditional mathematical representation of quantum mechanics. In such a lattice of propositions, it is demonstrable that there can be no coherent truth valuation set of cardinality greater than two inasmuch as a finite probability measure is not homomorphic with a non-distributive valuation on the real interval [0,1]. In the present paper, it is empirically demonstrated that the logic of natural languages is non-distributive. Thus, the lattice theoretic representation reduces from the traditional Boolean one to that proposed by Birkoff and von Neumann for quantum mechanics, commonly known as quantum logic. This result implies that fuzzy logics, probability logics, and multi-valued logics are inappropriate representations of either natural linguistic or quantum mechanical propositions. At best, such representations are valid only under limited conditions in which the lattice is locally Boolean (known as the isles of Boole). A criteria is presented for the determination of these conditions from empirical data.

Keywords

Membership Function Fuzzy Logic Distributive Lattice Fuzzy Variable Modular Lattice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, “On the Logic of Quantum Mechanics,” Ann. of Math., 37 (1936), 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Birkhoff, “Lattice Theory,” Amer. Math. Soc, Providence, Rhode Island (1967).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Dubois and H. Prade, “New Results About Properties and Semantics of Fuzzy-Set Theoretic Operators.” PAIS Conf. Proc, Durham, NC (June 1979), 167–174.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Kandel and W. Byatt, “Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Algebra, and Fuzzy Statistics,” IEEE Proc, Vol. 66 (Dec. 1978), 1619–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Kaufman, “A Survey of Fuzzy Sets Theory and Applications to Languages,” Automata and Algorithms, Berkeley, CA (1975).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Kochen and G. Dreyfuss-Raimi, “On the Psycholinguistic Reality of Fuzzy Sets: Effect of Context and Set,” Univ. of Mich., Mental Health Research Inst., Ann Arbor, MI (1974).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Kochen, “Applications of Fuzzy Sets in Psychology,” in: Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, L. A. Zadeh, et al., eds., Academic Press, New York (1975), 395–408.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Kodawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Oda, “Fuzzy Expression of Human Experience-to-Memory Process,” Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan (1973).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Kodawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Oda, “Fuzzy Theoretical Approaches to Forgetting Processes on Inference,” Nagoya Univ., Nagoya, Japan (1974).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Kodawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Oda, “Fuzzy Theoretical and Concept Formational Approach to Memory and Inference Experiments,” IECE Jap., 57-D (1974), 487–493.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Kodawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Oda, “Experimental Approach to Fuzzy Simulation of Memorizing Forgetting, and Inference Process,” in: Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, L. A. Zadeh, et al., eds., Academic Press, New York (1975), 409–428.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Lakoff, “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts,” J. of Philosophical Logic (1973), 458–508.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. D. McCawley, personal communication, Dept. of Linguistics, Univ. of Chicago (1975).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. McGoveran, “Methodologies in Multidisciplinary Modeling,” Alternative Technologies, Boulder Creek, CA (Aug. 1979).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Mizumoto, J. Toyoda, and K. Tanaka, “Fuzzy Languages,” Trans. Elec. Commun. Eng. Jap., Vol. 53-C (1970), 333–340.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Shimura, “An Approach to Pattern Recognition and Associative Memories Using Fuzzy Logic,” in: Fuzzy Sets and Their Application to Cognitive and Decision Processes, L. A. Zadeh, et al., eds., Academic Press, New York (1975), 449–476.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. C. Van Frassen, “Comments: Lakoff’s Fuzzy Propositional Logic,” in: Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, Reidel, Holland (1975).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Watanabe, “A Generalized Fuzzy-Set Theory,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern., Vol. SMC-8 (Oct. 1978), 756–760.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Watanabe, “Algebra of Observation,” Prog. Theoretical Physics, Nos. 37 and 38 (1966).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Zadeh, “A Fuzzy Set Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges,” J. Cybern., (1972) 4–34.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Zadeh, “Linguistic Cybernetics,” Proc. Inst. Symp. Syst. Sciences and Cybern., Oxford Univ., Oxford, England (1972).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. Zadeh, “The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning,” Inform. Sci. (1975).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. Zadeh, “Semantic Influence from Fuzzy Premises,” 6th Int. Symp Multiple Valued Logic, Logan, UT (1976), 217–218.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • David McGoveran
    • 1
  1. 1.Alternative TechnologiesBoulder CreekUSA

Personalised recommendations