Symmetric Properties of the Syllogistic System Inherited from the Square of Opposition

  • Bora İ KumovaEmail author
Part of the Studies in Universal Logic book series (SUL)


The logical square \(\Omega\) has a simple symmetric structure that visualises the bivalent relationships of the classical quantifiers A, I, E, O. In philosophy it is perceived as a self-complete possibilistic logic. In linguistics however its modelling capability is insufficient, since intermediate quantifiers like few, half, most, etc cannot be distinguished, which makes the existential quantifier I too generic and the universal quantifier A too specific. Furthermore, the latter is a special case of the former, i.e. A ⊂ I, making the square a logic with inclusive quantifiers. The inclusive quantifiers I and O can produce redundancies in linguistic systems and are too generic to differentiate any intermediate quantifiers. The redundancy can be resolved by excluding A from I, i.e.2I = I-A, analogously E from O, i.e.2O = O-E. Although the philosophical possibility of A ⊂ I is thus lost in2I, the symmetric structure of the exclusive square \(^{2}\Omega\) remains preserved. The impact of the exclusion on the traditional syllogistic system \(\mathbb{S}\) with inclusive existential quantifiers is that most of its symmetric structures are obviously lost in the syllogistic system \(^{2}\mathbb{S}\) with exclusive existential quantifiers too. Symmetry properties of \(\mathbb{S}\) are found in the distribution of the syllogistic cases that are matched by the moods and their intersections. A syllogistic case is a distinct combination of the seven possible spaces of the Venn diagram for three sets, of which there exist 96 possible cases. Every quantifier can be represented with a fixed set of syllogistic cases and so the moods too. Therefore, the 96 cases open a universe of validity for all moods of the syllogistic system \(\mathbb{S}\), as well as all fuzzy-syllogistic systems \(^{\mathrm{n}}\mathbb{S}\), with n-1 intermediate quantifiers. As a by-product of the fuzzy syllogistic system and its properties, we suggest in return that the logical square of opposition can be generalised to a fuzzy-logical graph of opposition, for 2 < n.


Fuzzy logic Reasoning Set theory Syllogisms 

Mathematics Subject Classification

03B22 Abstract deductive systems 03B35 Mechanization of proofs and logical operations 03B52 Fuzzy logic 03C55 Set-theoretic model theory 03C80 Logic with extra quantifiers and operators 



Thanks are due to Mikhail Zarechnev for developing applications that generate various data sets of the fuzzy syllogistic systems \(\mathbb{S}\), \(^{2}\mathbb{S}\) and \(^{6}\mathbb{S}\), for analysis purposes.


  1. [1]
    Aristotle, The Works of Aristotle, vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1937)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Barwise, R. Cooper, Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguist. Philos. 4 (2), 159–219 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Bernhard, Visualizations of the Square of Opposition, vol. 2 (Logica universalis, Birkhäuser, 2008)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Blanché, Sur l’opposition des concepts (About the opposition of concepts). Theoria 19, 89–130 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.G. Brennan, A Handbook of Logic (Harper, New York, 1961)Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    N. Chater, M. Oaksford, The probability heuristics model of syllogistic reasoning. Cogn. Psychol. 38, 191–258 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Delgado, D. Sánchez, M.A. Vila, Fuzzy cardinality based evaluation of quantified sentences. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 23 (1), 23–66 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Delgado, M.D. Ruiz, D. Sánchez, M.A. Vila, Fuzzy quantification: a state of the art. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 242, 1–30 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    L.S. Dickstein, The effect of figure on syllogistic reasoning. Mem. Cogn. 6 (1), 76–83 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    L.S. Dickstein, Conversion and possibility in syllogistic reasoning. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 18 (5), 229–232 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Dubois, H. Prade, Fuzzy cardinality and the modeling of imprecise quantification. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 16 (3), 199–230 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    L.G.F. Frege, Begriffsschrift, eine der Arithmetischen Nachgebildete Formalsprache des Reinen Denkens (Verlag von Louis Nebert, Halle, 1879)Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J.D. Gergonne, Essai de dialectique rationnelle. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 7, 189–228 (1817)Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    B. Geurts, Reasoning with quantifiers. Cognition 86, 223–251; ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    P.N. Johnson-Laird, M. Steedman, The psychology of syllogisms. Cogn. Psychol. 10 (1), 64–99 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    P.N. Johnson-Laird, B.G. Bara, Syllogistic inference. Cognition 16, 1–61 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    D. Keenan, D. Westerstahl, Generalized quantifiers in linguistics and logic. Handbook of Logic and Language (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2011)Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    B.İ. Kumova, H. Çakır, Algorithmic decision of syllogisms, in Conference on Industrial, Engineering & Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems (IEA-AIE’10). LNAI (Springer, Berlin, 2010)Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    B.İ. Kumova, H. Çakır, The fuzzy syllogistic system, in Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (MICAI210), Pachuca. LNAI (Springer, Berlin, 2010)Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    B.İ. Kumova, Generating ontologies from relational data with fuzzy-syllogistic reasoning. Beyond Databases, Architectures and Structures (BDAS). Communications in Computer and Information Science (CCIS) (Springer, Cham, 2015)Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    B.İ. Kumova, Fuzzy-syllogistic systems: a generic model for approximate reasoning. Industrial, Engineering & Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems (IEA-AIE). LNCS (Springer, New York, 2016)Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Leechman, Logic: designed as an introduction to the study of reasoning. Irregular Syllogisms, chap. VIII (William Allan, London, 1864), pp. 89–99Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J.D. Morell, Hand-Book of Logic (Longman, Harlow, 1857)Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    A. Moretti, Why the logical hexagon? Log. Univ. 6 (1), 69–107 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. Mostowki, On a generalization of quantifiers. Fundam. Math. 44 (1), 12–36 (1957)Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    P. Murinová, V. Novák, Analysis of generalized square of opposition with intermediate quantifiers. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 242, 89–113 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    P. Murinová, V. Novák, Syllogisms and 5-square of opposition with intermediate quantifiers in fuzzy natural logic. Log. Univ. 10 (2), 339–357 (2016); SpringerGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    M. Oaksford, N. Chater, The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5 (8), 349–357 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    R. Pagnan, A Diagrammatic calculus of syllogisms. Visual Reasoning with Diagrams. Studies in Universal Logic (Birkhäuser, Basel, 2013)Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    S.E. Parker, Logic or the Art of Reasoning Simplified. (Harvard College Library, Cambridge, 1837)Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    P. Peterson, On the logic of ’few’, ’many’, and ’most’. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 20 (1), 155–179 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    P. Peterson, Intermediate Quantifiers: Logic, Linguistics, and Aristotelian Semantics (Ashgate, Farnham, 2000)Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    G. Politzer, J.B. Van der Henst, C.D. Luche, I.A. Noveck, The interpretation of classically quantified sentences: a set-theoretic approach. Cogn. Sci. 30 (4), 691–723 (2006); WileyGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    F. Richman, Equivalence of syllogisms. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 45 (4), 215–233 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    S. Russell, P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence - A Modern Approach (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2009)Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    M.B. Smyth, A diagrammatic treatment of syllogistic. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 12 (4), 483–488 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    A. Turing, Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59 (236), 433–460 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    E. Turunen, An algebraic study of Peterson’s intermediate syllogisms. Soft Comput. 18 (12), 2431–2444 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    R. Wille, Contextual Logic and Aristotle’s Syllogistic (Springer, Berlin, 2005)Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Syntheses 30 (3), 407–428 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    L.A. Zadeh, Syllogistic reasoning in fuzzy logic and its application to usuality and reasoning with dispositions. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 15 (6), 754–763 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    M. Zarechnev, B.İ. Kumova, Ontology-based fuzzy-syllogistic reasoning, in International Conference on Industrial, Engineering & Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems (IEA-AIE). LNCS (Springer, Berlin, 2015)Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    M. Zarechnev, B.İ. Kumova, Truth ratios of syllogistic moods, in IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), IEEE Xplore (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineeringİzmir Institute of TechnologyİzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations