The paper proposes a new formal approach to vagueness and vague sets taking inspirations from Pawlak’s rough set theory. Following a brief introduction to the problem of vagueness, an approach to conceptualization and representation of vague knowledge is presented from a number of different perspectives: those of logic, set theory, algebra, and computer science. The central notion of the vague set, in relation to the rough set, is defined as a family of sets approximated by the so called lower and upper limits. The family is simultaneously considered as a family of all denotations of sharp terms representing a suitable vague term, from the agent’s point of view. Some algebraic operations on vague sets and their properties are defined. Some important conditions concerning the membership relation for vague sets, in connection to Blizard’s multisets and Zadeh’s fuzzy sets, are established as well. A classical outlook on a logic of vague sentences (vague logic) based on vague sets is also discussed.
Keywordsvagueness roughness vague sets rough sets knowledge vague knowledge membership relation vague logic
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Bonikowski, Z.: Sets Approximated by Representations (in Polish, the doctoral dissertation prepared under the supervision of Prof. U.Wybraniec-Skardowska), Warszawa (1996)Google Scholar
- 12.Marcus, S.: A Typology of Imprecision. In: Brainstorming Workshop on Uncertainty in Membrane Computing Proceedings, Palma de Mallorca, pp. 169–191 (2004)Google Scholar
- 13.Marek, W., Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets and Information Systems, ICS PAS Report 441 (1981)Google Scholar
- 16.Pawlak, Z.: Information Systems, ICS PAS Report 338 (1979)Google Scholar
- 22.Pawlak, Z.: Orthodox and Non-orthodox Sets - some Philosophical Remarks. Found. Comput. Decision Sci. 30(2), 133–140 (2005)Google Scholar
- 25.Skowron, A., Komorowski, J., Pawlak, Z., Polkowski, L.: Rough Sets Perspective on Data and Knowledge. In: Klösgen, W., Żytkow, J.M. (eds.) Handbook of Data Mining and Knowlewdge Discovery, pp. 134–149. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar