When \((S,N)\)-implications are \((T,T _{1})\)-conditional functions? (Q1867705): Difference between revisions

From MaRDI portal
Importer (talk | contribs)
Created a new Item
 
ReferenceBot (talk | contribs)
Changed an Item
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Property / MaRDI profile type
 
Property / MaRDI profile type: MaRDI publication profile / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: On a family of connectives for fuzzy sets / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Some remarks on approximate entailment / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q4315286 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Valued preference structures / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: On the simultaneous associativity of F(x,y) and x+y-F(x,y) / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Q3336431 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: ON LOGIC AND FUZZY LOGIC / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: Logic: Going farther from Tarski? / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / cites work
 
Property / cites work: A general concept of fuzzy connectives, negations and implications based on t-norms and t-conorms / rank
 
Normal rank
links / mardi / namelinks / mardi / name
 

Latest revision as of 14:44, 5 June 2024

scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
When \((S,N)\)-implications are \((T,T _{1})\)-conditional functions?
scientific article

    Statements

    When \((S,N)\)-implications are \((T,T _{1})\)-conditional functions? (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    2 April 2003
    0 references
    One of the key issues in the formalization of approximate reasoning is the so-called compositional rule of inference, also called the generalized modus ponens, i.e., from an imprecise fact \(P\) and an imprecise rule \(P\Rightarrow Q\) can we deduce the imprecise conclusion \(Q\)? The answer heavily depends on the implication used to model the rule and on the triangular norm used to model the confluence between the given fact and the given rule. In mathematical terms, the following problem arises. Starting from a non-strict Archimedean t-norm \(T\), a continuous Archimedean t-conorm \(S\), and a strong negation induced by \(T\), under which conditions is the \([0,1]^2-[0,1]\) mapping \(T_1\), defined by \(T_1(x,y)=T(x,S(N(x),y))\), a triangular norm? This paper gives three characterizations.
    0 references
    0 references
    fuzzy implications
    0 references
    triangular norm
    0 references
    compositional rule of inference
    0 references
    generalized modus ponens
    0 references