Fuzzy Sets Theory and Applications pp 133-170 | Cite as

# Support Logic Programming

## Abstract

This paper describes a support logic programming system which uses a theory of support pairs to model various forms of uncertainty.

It should find application to designing expert systems and is of a query language type like Prolog. Uncertainty associated with facts and rules is represented by a pair of supports and uses ideas from Zadeh’s fuzzy set theory and Shafer’s evidence theory. A calculus is derived for such a system and various models of interpretation given. The paper provides a form of knowledge representation and inference under uncertainty suitable for expert systems and a closed world assumption is not assumed. Facts not in the knowledge base are uncertain rather than assumed to be false.

## Keywords

Support Logic Vote Pattern Material Implication Closed World Assumption Necessity Measure## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.Achinstein P.A., (1983),
*The concept of evidence*, Oxford University.Google Scholar - 2.Baldwin J.F., (1983), ‘An inference language based on fuzzy logic’,
*Proc. of Expert systems B.C.S Special Group Conf*, Cambridge.Google Scholar - 3.Baldwin J.F., (1985), ‘Fuzzy reasoning: the need for blunter tools’,
*I.B.M Science and Uncertainty Conference papers (1983), Science and Uncertainty*(Ed Sara Nash), Science Reviews Ltd., pp 119–137.Google Scholar - 4.Baldwin J.F and Crabtree B., (1985), ‘CRIL — A conceptual relation inference language’, To Appear.Google Scholar
- 5.Baldwin J.F., Martin T.P. and Pilsworth B.W., (1985), ‘The implementation of FProlog — a fuzzy prolog interpreter’, To Appear in Fuzzy Sets and Systems.Google Scholar
- 6.Baldwin J.F and Monk R., (1985), ‘Evidence theory, Fuzzy Logic and Logic Programming’, To Appear.Google Scholar
- 7.Baldwin J.F and Pilsworth B.W., (1980), ‘Axiomatic approach to implication for approximate reasoning with fuzzy logic’,
*Fuzzy Sets and Systems*3, pp 193–219.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.Bandler, W. and Kohout, L. (1980), ‘Fuzzy power sets and fuzzy implication operators’,
*Fuzzy Sets and Systems*, 4, pp 13–20.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.Dubois D. and Prade H., (1980),
*Fuzzy Sets and Systems Theory and Applications*, Academic Press.Google Scholar - 10.Gaines, B.R., (1978), ‘Fuzzy and probability uncertainty logics’,
*Information Control*, 38(2), 154–169.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.Gaines B.R. and Shaw M.L.G., (1981), ‘New directions in the analysis and interactive elicitation of personal construct systems’, in
*Recent advances in Personal Construct Theory*(Ed Milded Shaw), Academic Press.Google Scholar - 12.Ginsberg, M.L, (1984)
*. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84)*, pp 126–129.Google Scholar - 13.Kelly G.A. (1955),
*The Psychology of Personal Constructs*, New York: Norton.Google Scholar - 14.Peirce C.S. (1933),
*Collected Papers*, ed by Hartshorne C. and Weiss P., 2, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar - 15.Rescher N., (1979),
*Induction*, Blackwell.Google Scholar - 16.Schlesinger G.N., (1985),
*The range of epistemic logic*, Aberdeen Univ Press.Google Scholar - 17.Shafer G. (1976),
*A Mathematical theory of Evidence*, Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar - 18.Sheperdson J.C (1985), ‘Negation as Failure’
*Report PM-01-85*, School of Mathematics, University of Bristol.Google Scholar - 19.Sowa J.F. (1984),
*Conceptual Structures*, Adison Wesley.Google Scholar - 20.Trillas E. and Valerde L. (1985 ), ‘On modus ponens in fuzzy logic’
*Int. Sym. Multi-valued Logic.*Google Scholar - 21.Yager R. (1983), ‘On the Dempster-Shafer framework and new combination rules’,
*Tech. Report MII-504*, Machine Intelligent Institute, Iona College, New Rochelle, New York.Google Scholar - 22.
- 23.Zadeh, L.A. (1978), ‘Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility’,
*Fuzzy Sets and Systems*, 1, 3–28.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.Zadeh L.A. (1979) ‘A theory of approximate reasoning’ in
*Machine Intelligence*vol.*9**Michie D and Mikulich L.I(Eds) John Villey New York pp149–194*Google Scholar