Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 6 Issue 037
AIList Digest Sunday, 21 Feb 1988 Volume 6 : Issue 37
Today's Topics:
Queries - MACSYMA Under Golden Common Lisp & AI and OOPS &
Frame/Logic/TMS/Rule Code & AI in Communications and Signal Processing &
Economic Prediction Lecture & Analogy Conference Proceedings,
AI Tools - Fuzzy Logic vs. Probability Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 88 19:01:58 WUT
From: LENNEIS%AWIWUW11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Subject: MACSYMA under Golden-Common-Lisp
I am sending this out for a friend. Please send replys to the address
below. People interested in a summary should contact me directly.
*********************
request: MACSYMA under Golden-Common-Lisp
Does anybody know, if there is a version of MACSYMA available
for the Golden-Common-Lisp-Developer? If it exists, please give
me the company's name and address.
regards, Wolfram Rinke
*********************
Joerg Lenneis
University of Economics and Business Administration Vienna
Department of Statistics and Applied Data Processing
Vienna, Austria
Email: LENNEIS@AWIWUW11 (BITNET)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 88 20:36:15 GMT
From: Frank_Calliss <COK8@MTS.DURHAM.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: AI and OOPS
Someone mentioned in this group that there soon a journal on OOPS would
be issued. Could we have a name and address for information on
subscription.
Thanks
Frank
Return addresses
E-Mail
------
JANET : Frank_Calliss@UK.AC.DUR.MTS
BITNET: Frank_Calliss%DUR.MTS@AC.UK
BITNET: Frank_Calliss%DUR.MTS@UKACRL
ARPA : Frank_Calliss%MTS.DUR.AC.UK@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
UUCP : ukc!uk.ac.dur.easby!fwc
Snail Mail
----------
Mr. F.W. Calliss
University of Durham
School of Engineering and Applied Science(Computer Science)
Science Laboratories
South Road
Durham
England
DH1 3LE
------------------------------
Date: 19 Feb 88 04:29:53 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx!jasst3@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Jeffrey A.
Sullivan)
Subject: Frame/Logic/TMS/Rule Code request
If anyone has pointers to code (pref Common Lisp) for any of the following,
please let me know:
-- Frame systems
-- Rule(Production) systems
-- Logic (theorem provers or deductive retrievers, pref both)
-- Truth Maintenance Systems
Thanks!
--
..........................................................................
Jeff Sullivan University of Pittsburgh
jas@dsl.cadre.pittsburgh.edu Intelligent Systems Studies Program
jasper@PittVMS (BITNET) Graduate Student
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 88 18:44:05 est
From: drb@cscfac.ncsu.edu (Dennis R. Bahler)
Subject: AI in Communications and Signal Processing
I am looking for descriptions or pointers to AI applications in
advanced communications systems and adaptive signal processing. Right now
I am looking more for traditional symbolic AI than connectionist/neural
approaches although the latter are of interest also in the longer term.
As an example, intelligent systems/models/approaches for:
network modeling and analysis
tools for advanced communication systems design
network management, control, diagnosis, and repair
vision, image, and signal processing
multidimensional signal processing
complex optimization
I know these are pretty broad areas, and some are more familiar to me
than others; what I need are suggestions of where to dig.
Dennis Bahler
Dept. of Computer Science INTERNET - drb@cscadm.ncsu.edu
North Carolina State University CSNET - drb%cscadm.ncsu.edu@relay.cs.net
Raleigh, NC 27695-8206 UUCP - ...!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!cscadm!drb
------------------------------
Date: 20 Feb 88 22:37:23 GMT
From: beta!unm-la!claborn@hc.dspo.gov (Joe Claborn)
Subject: Re: Economic Prediction Lecture (2/23/88)
Will someone who is able to attend this lecture please summarize
to the net ?
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 88 12:55:05 MST
From: teskridg%nmsu.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: analogy conference proceedings
Can anyone tell me where I can get the Proceedings of the Allerton
Workshop on Analogy & Similarity. The workshop was held at the
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in June of 1986.
Thanks.
Tom Eskridge
Computing Research Laboratory
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
teskridg%nmsu
------------------------------
Date: 17 Feb 88 23:47:25 GMT
From: texsun!skb%usl@Sun.COM (Sanjiv K. Bhatia)
Reply-to: texsun!usl.usl.edu!skb@Sun.COM (Sanjiv K. Bhatia)
Subject: Fuzzy logic
Is anybody on the network interested in fuzzy logic? Is there already a group
to discuss this area? If not, how about starting one? I do not know the
procedures to start a new group, so will somebody out there get in touch with
me.
Sanjiv
------------------------------
Date: 19 Feb 88 04:24:08 GMT
From: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Subject: Re: Fuzzy Logic
In article <400@usl> skb@usl.usl.edu.UUCP (Sanjiv K. Bhatia) writes:
>Is anybody on the network interested in fuzzy logic? Is there already a group
>to discuss this area? If not, how about starting one? I do not know the
>procedures to start a new group, so will somebody out there get in touch with
>me.
>
>Sanjiv
I'm researching the application of fuzzy theory to expert systems, and
would be very interested in participating in such a group. If there is
one, I'm ignorant of it (someone please inform). I recently posted a
reply to someone on this subject. Is there a more general interest?
O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Mad Cybernetician
| Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, NY
| vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
------------------------------
Date: 19 Feb 88 15:56:57 GMT
From: Eric Neufeld <emneufeld%watdragon.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Reply-to: Eric Neufeld <emneufeld%watdragon.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
Subject: Re: FUZZY LOGIC VS. PROBABILITY THEORY
In article <8802180658.AA11175@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> golden@FRODO.STANFORD.EDU
(Richard Golden) writes:
>I am not an expert in Fuzzy Logic or Probability Theory but I have examined
>the literature regarding the foundations of Probability Theory and the
>derivation of these foundations from basic principles of deductive logic.
>[...]
>The reference from which these arguments are based is given
>by Cox (1946). Probability Frequency and reasonable expectation.
>American Journal of Statistical Physics, 14, 1-13.
>[...]
>To my knowledge, the axioms of Fuzzy Logic can not be derived from
>consistency conditions generated from the deductive logic so I conclude
>that Fuzzy Logic is not appropriate for inferencing. Any comments?!!!
The interest in reasoning with and about uncertainty in AI has sparked a
re-investigation into foundations of Prob. Theory. Cox's theorem has become
an important result for those interested in prob. theory as a measure of
belief. You may be interested in the following references:
Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Uncertainty and AI: 1985, 1986, 1987.
A number of articles investigate the relationship between formal prob. theory
and the various alternate formalisms: Fuzzy, Certainty Factors,
Dempster-Shafer. Note articles by Cheeseman, Grosof, Heckerman and Horvitz.
Kyburg, Henry E- Bayesian and Non-Bayesian Evidential Updating, AI Journal,
Vol 31, 1987. Investigates probabilistic assumptions underlying
Dempster-Shafer Theory.
Heckerman et al: AAAI-86: "A Framework for comparing alternate formalisms..."
Has been described as a presentation of Cox's result to the AI community.
Computational Intelligence: Upcoming issue (delayed in printing) Contains a
polemic article by Peter Cheeseman on probability theory (versus everything
in the world) and responses by various researchers, etc.
Aleliunas, Romas: "Mathematical Models of Reasoning". Contains a
generalization of Cox's result to topologies other than real-valued
continuous [0,1] probability. University of Waterloo Tech Report.
Eric Neufeld
Dept. Computer Science
University of Waterloo
Waterloo Canada
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 88 10:15:47 PST
From: golden@frodo.STANFORD.EDU (Richard Golden)
Subject: I'm still not convinced ... Fuzzy Logic and Probability
Theory
I'm sorry but I do not find Bruce D'Ambrosio's arguments convincing
(although I would be happy to be convinced!!!)
As I noted before, the AXIOMS of probability theory can be justified
from constraints upon rational decision making (i.e., standard deductive logic).
I have not seen (I would like to see) similar arguments constructed for
the AXIOMS of fuzzy set theory.
In response to point 1 that fuzzy logic is appropriate in cases where we
do not have exact probabilities I would argue that probability theory is
still applicable since we can do conditioning. That is, suppose we
know that the probability of event A, p(A), lies in the interval [0.3,0.4].
We can model our uncertainty associated with p(A) by rewriting p(A) as
p(A|t) where t is a dummy random variable uniformly distributed over the
interval [0.3,0.4].
In response to point 2, that Zadeh's intuition was set theoretic, and not
frequentist or subjective I would like to emphasize that all
of my arguments break down if one takes the
frequentist view of probability theory --- it is absolutely essential
that the subjectivist view of probability theory is taken. The subjectivist
view simply says that some number is associated with a particular event in
the environment and this number reflects one's belief that the event occurs.
Thus, there is no reason why we can't interpret this number as an
indicator of approximate correctness.
The final comment that there can be "no real conflict between fuzzy set
theory and probability theory" is valid as long as you are not concerned with
making inferences which are always consistent with the symbolic logic
(i.e., Boolean Algebra). If you are concerned with making inferences
consistent with symbolic logic...then you are right...there is no conflict...
probability theory wins (unless you can justify the axioms of fuzzy set theory
with respect to rational decision making for me).
A final caveat upon the limitations of probability theory AND fuzzy logic.
Both of these approaches assume one can represent belief as a single
real-valued function -- this critical assumption should not be ignored.
But if one does accept this assumption and one wants to make logically
consistent inferences, probability theory is the way to go.
Cc:
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 88 12:27:36 EST
From: ST401843%BROWNVM.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re:Fuzzy Logic vs. Probability Theory
Here is my two bits about fuzzy logic: Richard Golden writes:
>...Rational selection in this case meaning consistency with the classic
>deductive/symbolic logic - boolean algebra...
But here's the rub! In Boolean Algebra you have clear cut True or False
truth values.In Crisp Set Theory (to a subclass of which theory Boolean Algebra
is isomorphic) you have clear cut "x belongs A" relationships. Write this as
B(x,A)=1 , where x is an element, A is a set and B(.,A) takes values (for
"belongs" and 0 for "not belongs". In other words B(.,A) is the "belongingness"
function of A. In Fuzzy Set Theory on the other hand, B(.,A) can take any
value between 0 and 1. There are no clear cut answers to questions such as:
"does a person 5 ft. 10 in. tall belong to the set of tall persons?".
Cisp Set Theory is what we traditionally call Set Theory. It is a subset of
Fuzzy Set Theory, in that in CST B can take only the extreme values 0 and 1.
Of course in all of FST we use the reasoning, syllogisms etc. of the Boolean
Algebra. I don't know if anyone does Fuzzy Mathematics. In FM, things such
as reasoning by Reductio ad Absurdum would not be valid. Why? Well, in
RaA we usually want to prove something for x, call it P(x). And we begin by
saying: "assume NOT P(x)..." But in FST P(x) and NOT P(x) are just two of
uncountably many possibilities. But maybe ther is a Fuzzy generalization
to RaA. Does anyone know?
Anyways, I think FST is still an alternative way to reasoning about
uncertain events, different from Probability Theory. In fact there has been
work done on Fuzzy Probability, postulating fuzzy probability measures. I did
not have time to check before I send this, but I suppose they would drop
things like the countable additivity hypothesis. And classical PT is by
no means the only way to reason about uncertain events- see von Mises and
deFinneti, among others.
One last observation. I do not want to make much of it, but is it not
remarkable that FST, an alternative to the Aristotelian logic, was invented
by Zadeh, an Indian?
Thanasis Kehagias
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
