When \((S,N)\)-implications are \((T,T _{1})\)-conditional functions? (Q1867705)
From MaRDI portal
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
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
fuzzy implications
0 references
triangular norm
0 references
compositional rule of inference
0 references
generalized modus ponens
0 references