Abstract
An active set is a unifying space being able to act as a “bridge” for transferring information, ideas and results between distinct types of uncertainties and different types of applications. An active set is a set of agents who independently deliver true or false values for a given proposition. It is not a simple vector of logic values for different propositions, the results are a vector but the set is not. The difference between an ordinary set and active set is that the ordinary set has passive elements with values of the attributes defined by an external agent, in the active set any element is an agent that internally defines the value of a given attribute for a passive element. So agents in many cases are in a logic conflict and this generates semantic uncertainty on the evaluation. Criteria and agents are the two variables by which we give different logic values to the same attribute or proposition. In modal logic, given a proposition, we can evaluate the proposition only when we know the worlds where the proposition is located. In epistemic logic any world is an agent that knows that the proposition is true or false. The active set is a set of agents as in epistemic logic but the difference with modal logic is that all the agents (worlds) are not separate but are joined in the evaluation of the given proposition. In active set for one agent and one criteria we have one logic value but for many agents and criteria the evaluation is not true or false but is a matrix of true and false. This matrix is not only a logic evaluation as in the modal logic but give us the conflicting structure of the active set evaluation. The agent multi dimensional space to evaluate active set also includes the Hilbert multidimensional space where is possible to simulate quantum logic gate. New logic operation are possible as fuzzy gate operations and more complex operations as conflicting solving, consensus operations, syntactic inconsistency, semantic inconsistency and knowledge integration. In the space of the agents evaluations morphotronic geometric operations are a new frontier to model new types of computers. In this paper we show the connection between classical, fuzzy, evidence theory and active sets.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arrow, K.: Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Cowles Foundation Monograph Series (1963)
Arrow, K., Sen, A., Suzumura, K.: Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. Elsevier (2002)
Atanassov, K.: Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications. Springer-Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (1999)
Baker, K.: Condorcet: From Natural Philosophy to Social Mathematics. University of Chicago Press (1975)
Baldwin, J.: A Theory of Mass Assignments for Artificial Intelligence. In: Driankov, D., Ralescu, A.L., Eklund, P. (eds.) IJCAI-WS 1991. LNCS, vol. 833, pp. 22–34. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)
Baldwin, J.: A calculus for mass assignments in evidential reasoning. In: Yager, R., Fedrizzi, M., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence, pp. 513–531. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1994)
Baldwin, J., Martin, T., Pilsworth, B.: Fril - Fuzzy and Evidential Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence. Research Studies Press Ltd., Taunton (1995)
Belnap, A.: How a computer should think. In: Ryle, G. (ed.) Oxford International Symposium on Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, pp. 30–55. Oriel Press (1977)
Belnap, A.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn, J., Epstein, G., Reidel, D. (eds.) Modern Uses of Multiple-Valued Logic, pp. 8–37. Reidel Publishing Company, Boston (1978)
Cubillo, S., Castiñeira, E.: Measuring contradiction in fuzzy logic. International Journal of General Systems 34(1), 39–59 (2005)
Doherty, P., Driankov, D., Tsoukis, A.: Partial logics and partial preferences. In: Proceedings of the CEMIT 92 International Conference, Tokyo, pp. 525–528 (1992)
Dubarle, D.: Essai sur la généralisation naturelle de la logique usuelle. Mathématique, Informatique, Sciences Humaines 107, 17–73 (1963)
Gabbay, D., Rodrigues, O., Russo, A.: Revision by Translation. Kluwer (1999)
Giles, R.: A formal system for fuzzy reasoning. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2, 233–257 (1979)
Hinde, C.: Inference of Fuzzy Relational Tableaux from Fuzzy Exemplifications. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11, 91–101 (1983)
Hinde, C.: Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Interval Valued Fuzzy Sets and Mass Assignment: a Unifying Treatment including Inconsistency and Contradiction. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research 4(4), 372–391 (2009)
Hinde, C.: Knowledge from Contradiction and Inconsistency. In: Atanassow, K., Baczynski, M., Drewniak, J., Kacprzyk, J., Krawczak, M., Szmidt, E., Wygralak, M., Zadrozny, S. (eds.) Developments in Fuzzy Sets, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Generalized Nets and Related Topics. Foundations, vol. 1, pp. 95–107. Academic Publishing House EXIT, Warsaw (2009)
Hinde, C.: The statement is contradictory. In: Proceedings of 2009 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, pp. 235–240. IASTED (September 2009)
Hinde, C., Atanassov, K.: On Intuitionistic Fuzzy Negations and Intuitionistic Fuzzy Modal operators with Contradictory Evidence. In: Dimitrov, D., Mladenov, V., Jordanova, S., Mastorakis, N. (eds.) Proceedings of 9th WSEAS International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FS 2008) (May 2008)
Hinde, C., Patching, R.: Inconsistent Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. In: Atanassov, K., Bustince, H., Hryniewicz, O., Kacprzyk, J., Krawczak, M., Riecan, B., Szmidt, E. (eds.) Developments in Fuzzy Sets, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Generalized Nets and Related Topics. Foundations, pp. 155–174. Academic Publishing House EXIT, Warsaw (2007)
Hinde, C., Patching, R., McCoy, S.: Inconsistent Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Mass Assignment. In: Atanassov, K., Bustince, H., Hryniewicz, O., Kacprzyk, J., Krawczak, M., Riecan, B., Szmidt, E. (eds.) Developments in Fuzzy Sets, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Generalized Nets and Related Topics. Foundations, pp. 133–153. Academic Publishing House EXIT, Warsaw (2007)
Hinde, C., Patching, R., Stone, R., Xhemali, D., McCoy, S.: Reasoning Consistently about Inconsistency. In: Garibaldi, J., Angelov, P. (eds.) Proceedings of 2007 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, pp. 769–775 (2007)
McHenry, M.: NSF spectrum occupancy measurements project summary (August 2005), http://www.sharedspectrum.com
Nguyen, N.: Advanced methods for inconsistent knowledge management. Springer, London (2008)
Patching, R., Hinde, C., McCoy, S.: Inconsistency and semantic unification. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157, 2513–2539 (2006)
Resconi, G., Hinde, C.: Active sets, fuzzy sets and inconsistency. In: Aranda, J., Xambo, S. (eds.) Proceedings of FUZZIEEE 2010, pp. 354–357. IEEE (2010)
Resconi, G., Kovalerchuk, B.: Agents in Quantum and Neural Uncertainty. In: Medical Information Science Reference, Hershey, New York (2011)
Scott, D.: Some ordered sets in computer science. In: Rival, I. (ed.) Ordered Sets, pp. 677–718. Reidel Publishing Company, Boston (1982)
Sen, A.: Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Holden Day (1990)
Thole, U., Zimmermann, H., Zysno, P.: On the suitability of minimum and product operators for the intersection of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2, 167–180 (1979)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Resconi, G., Hinde, C. (2012). Introduction to Active Sets and Unification. In: Nguyen, NT. (eds) Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence VIII. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7430. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34645-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34645-3_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34644-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34645-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)