Advertisement

Cybernetics and Systems Analysis

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 207–219 | Cite as

Proof of Theorems in Fuzzy Logic Based on Structural Resolution

  • Yu. Ya. SamokhvalovEmail author
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

An approach to proving theorems with fuzzy and not quite true argumentation is considered. Zadeh’s compositional rule of inference is used as the rule of provably correct reasoning, and its procedural implementation is enabled by a refutation mechanism. As such a mechanism, structural resolution (S-resolution) is proposed that is a generalization of the principle of resolutions to fuzzy statements. S-resolution is based on semantic indices of letters and their similarity. Semantic indices are essential in S-resolution. They contain data used as control information in the process of inference. And similarity implies finding letters to obtain an S-resolvent. Combining Zadeh’s compositional rule of inference and S-resolution allows, on the one hand, to withdraw the problem of correctness of resolvents in fuzzy logic and, on the other hand, to ensure the regularity of the process of a proof in two-valued and fuzzy logics.

Keywords

automatic proof of theorems fuzzy theorem principle of resolutions fuzzy logic approximate reasoning generalized rule of modus ponens composition rule fuzzy predicate fuzzy variable linguistic variable 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Mukaidono, “Fuzzy deduction of resolution type,” in: R. R. Yager (ed.), Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory. Recent Developments [Russian translation], Radio i Sv’yaz, Moscow (1986), pp. 153–161.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Dubois and H. Prade, “Necessity and the resolution principle,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 17, No. 3, 474–478 (1987).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. S. Kim, D. S. Kim, and J. Park, “A new fuzzy resolution principle based on the antonym,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 113, No. 2, 299–307 (2000).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. A. Fontana and F. Formato, “A similarity-based resolution principle,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 17, No. 9, 853–872 (2002).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Raha and K. S. Ray, “Approximate reasoning based on generalised disjunctive syllogism,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 61, No. 2, 143–151 (1994).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Habiballa, “Resolution principle in fuzzy predicate logic,” Acta Fac. Paed. Univ. Tyrnaviensis, Ser. C, No. 9 3–12 (2005).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Habiballa, “Resolution principle and fuzzy logic,” in: E. Dadios (ed.), Fuzzy Logic — Algorithms, Techniques, and Implementations, Ch. 3, IntechOpen, London (2012), pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. D. Shtovba, Design of Fuzzy Systems by Means of MATLAB [in Russian], Hot Line – Telecom, Moscow (2007).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Raha, N. R. Pal, and K. S. Ray, “Similarity based approximate reasoning: Methodology and application,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 32, No. 4. 541–547 (2002).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Mondal, D. Mazumdar, and S. Raha, “Similarity in approximate reasoning,” International Journal of Computational Cognition, Vol. 4, No. 3, 46–56 (2006).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mondal B., Raha S. Similarity-based inverse approximate reasoning. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 19, No. 6. 1058–1071 (2011).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Mondal and S. Raha, “Approximate reasoning in fuzzy resolution,” International Journal of Intelligence Science. Vol. 3, No 2, 86–98 (2013).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu. Ya. Samokhvalov, “Problem-oriented theorem-proving method in fuzzy logic (PO-method),” Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 5, 682–690 (1995).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L.A. Zadeh, The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Making Approximate Reasoning [Russian translation], Mir, Moscow (1976).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Bofill, G. Moreno, C. Vázquez, and M. Villaret, “Automatic proving of fuzzy formulae with fuzzy logic programming and SMT,” in: Actas de las XIII Jornadas sobre Programacio'n y Lenguajes, PROLE’13, Jornadas SISTEDES, Madrid (2013), pp, 151–165.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu. Ya. Samokhvalov, “The Assessment of the administrative decisions validity by fuzzy logic,” USiM, No. 3, 26–34 (2017).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu. Ya. Samokhvalov, “Coordination of expert estimates in matrices of preference relations,” USiM, No. 6, 49–53 (2002).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zwick R., Carlstein E., Budescu D.V. Measures of similarity among fuzzy concepts: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Approximat., Vol. 1, No. 2, 221–242 (1987).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Mondal, D. Mazumdar, and S. Raha “Similarity in approximate reasoning,” International Journal of Computational Cognition, Vol. 4, No. 3. 46–56 (2006).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. M. Wilamowski and J. D. Irwin (eds.), The Industrial Electronics Handbook: Intelligent Systems, CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu. Ya. Samokhvalov, “Automatic theorem proving and fuzzy situational search for decisions,” Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, Vol. 37, No. 4, 509–514 (2001).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Ford, The Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of Jobless Future, Basic Books, New York (2015).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Taras Shevchenko National University of KyivKyivUkraine

Personalised recommendations