Advertisement

Some Comments on Ordinary Reasoning with Fuzzy Sets

  • Enric TrillasEmail author
  • Adolfo R. de Soto
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 341)

Abstract

The main goal of Computing with Words is essentially a calculation allowing to automate a part of the reasoning done thanks to the natural language. Fuzzy Logic is the main tool to perform this calculation because it is be able to represent the most common kind of predicates in natural language, graded predicates, in terms of functions, and to calculate with them. However there is still not an adequate framework to perform this task, commonly referred to as commonsense reasoning. This chapter proposes a general framework to model a part of this type of reasoning. The fundamental fact of this framework is its ability to adequately represent noncontradiction, the minimum condition for considering a reasoning as valid. Initially, the characteristics of the commonsense reasoning are analyzed, and a model for the crisp case is shown. After that the more general case in which graded predicates are taken under consideration is studied.

Keywords

Fuzzy sets Computing with words Conjectures Commonsense reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This author acknowledges the support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER) under grant TIN2014-56633-C3-1-R.

References

  1. 1.
    Bodiou, G.: Théorie diallectique des probabilités. Gauthier-Villars (1964)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castro, J.L., Trillas, E., Cubillo, S.: On consequence in approximate reasoning. J. Appl. Non-Class. Logics 4(1), 91–103 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Menger, K.: Morality, Decision and Social Organization: Toward a Logic of Ethics. Springer Science & Business Media (1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Popper, K.R.: Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (1965)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trillas, E.: Glimpsing at Guessing. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 281, 32–43 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trillas, E., Alsina, C.: Elkan’s theoretical argument, reconsidered. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 26(2), 145–152 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trillas, E.: Non contradiction, excluded middle, and fuzzy sets. In: Di Gesù, V., et al. (eds.) Fuzzy Logic and Applications, pp. 1–11. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trillas, E.: A model for “crisp reasoning” with fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 27(10), 859–872 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trillas, E.: Some uncertain reflections on uncertainty. Arch. Philos. Hist. Soft Comput. 1, 1–16 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trillas, E.: How science domesticates concepts? Arch. Philos. Hist. Soft Comput. 1, 1–17 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy logic = computing with words. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 4(2), 103–111 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Part I. Inf. Sci. 8, 199–249 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zadeh, L.A.: A theory of approximate reasoning. Mach. Intell. 9, 149–194 (1979)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Computing with Words. Principal Concepts and Ideas, volume 277 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Probability measures of fuzzy events. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 23(2), 421–427 (1968)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oviedo (Asturias)Spain
  2. 2.University of LeónLeónSpain

Personalised recommendations