Showing posts with label set theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label set theory. Show all posts

6 Jun 2019

Griss (3.2) “Logic of Negationless Intuitionistic Mathematics”, Section 3.2, “[Distinguishability. Complimentary Subspecies. The Touch Condition. The Rejection of Empty Species]”, summary

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Mathematics, Calculus, Geometry, Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, entry directory]

[Griss, entry directory]

[Griss, “Logic of Negationless Intuitionistic Mathematics”, entry directory]

 

 

[The following is summary. I am not a mathematician, so please consult the original text instead of trusting my summarizations, which are surely mistaken or inelegantly articulated. Bracketed comments and subsection divisions are my own. Proofreading is incomplete, so please forgive my mistakes.]

 

 

 

 

Summary of

 

George François Cornelis Griss

(G.F.C. Griss)

 

“Logic of Negationless Intuitionistic Mathematics”

 

3

“§3. Conditions for the existence of the complementary species and the
inter section”

 

3.2

[Distinguishability. Complimentary Subspecies. The Touch Condition. The Rejection of Empty Species]

 

 

 

 

 

Brief summary:

(3.2) We take two notions to be equally fundamental [and primitive]: being identical and distinguishability. We begin with a set u that has at least two distinguishable elements. “a proper subspecies a of u is a subspecies so that at least one element of u is distinguishable from all elements of a.” [So a is a proper subspecies if it is a set that contains just members of u but not all of them.] Then, the complementary species or compliment as those other u elements that are the remainder: “If a is a proper subspecies of u, the complementary species (complement) ¬a is the species of all elements that are distinguishable from the elements of a. Each element of a is distinguishable from each element of ¬a, a and ¬a are disjoint.” In order for two sets to intersect, a b, they need to share at least one common element, which is called the touch condition, a  χ b, and it results from the rejection of there being any empty species.

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

3.2

[Distinguishability. Complimentary Subspecies. The Touch Condition. The Rejection of Empty Species]

 

Bibliography

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

 

3.2

[Distinguishability. Complimentary Subspecies. The Touch Condition. The Rejection of Empty Species]

 

[We take two notions to be equally fundamental [and primitive]: being identical and distinguishability. We begin with a set u that has at least two distinguishable elements. “a proper subspecies a of u is a subspecies so that at least one element of u is distinguishable from all elements of a.” [So a is a proper subspecies if it is a set that contains just members of u but not all of them.] Then, the complementary species or compliment as those other u elements that are the remainder: “If a is a proper subspecies of u, the complementary species (complement) ¬a is the species of all elements that are distinguishable from the elements of a. Each element of a is distinguishable from each element of ¬a, a and ¬a are disjoint.” In order for two sets to intersect, a b, they need to share at least one common element, which is called the touch condition, a  χ b, and it results from the rejection of empty species.]

 

[We take the notion of being identical as fundamental. (So we assume that it is a matter of sameness or perhaps as having the traditional properties of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. Perhaps we are just saying it is a primitive notion that is expressed using the = sign.) We also take the notion of distinguishability as equally fundamental. (It seems we would assume that there are things that we can distinguish from one another, meaning that they have some kind of uniqueness in relation to other things, or a separation of some sort from them.) We begin with a set u, and we will assume that it has at least two distinguishable elements. There are no empty subsets (subspecies). We next define proper subspecies: a is a proper subspecies of u if it is a subset of u where some element(s) of u are distinguishable from those of a (and thus lie outside it): “a proper subspecies a of u is a subspecies so that at least one element of u is distinguishable from all elements of a.” So if we have a proper subspecies a of u, that means there is a set of u members outside of a but that in addition to a complete the set u. We define the complementary species or compliment as those other u elements: “If a is a proper subspecies of u, the complementary species (complement) ¬a is the species of all elements that are distinguishable from the elements of a. Each element of a is distinguishable from each element of ¬a, a and ¬a are disjoint.” (Disjoint here might be a non-negational way of dealing with disjunction like we saw in section 1.0.3 of Griss’ “Negationless Intuitionistic Mathematics, II”. For the two subspecies to be disjunct, that means an item is in either one or the other. What is excluded from this conception is a disjunctive synthesis whereby we would say that we know an that an item is in one subspecies on account of it not being in the other.) In order for two sets to intersect, a b, they need to share at least one common element, which is called the touch condition, a  χ b, and this results from the rejection of there being empty species.]

In negationless intuitionistic mathematics the notion of distinguisha- | bility is equally fundamental as the notion of identity. In the following we shall suppose that u contains at least two distinguishable elements. Then we can define: a proper subspecies a of u is a subspecies so that at least one element of u is distinguishable from all elements of a. If a is a proper subspecies of u, the complementary species (complement) ¬a is the species of all elements that are distinguishable from the elements of a. Each element of a is distinguishable from each element of ¬a, a and ¬a are disjoint. a  ≠ u, in words: “a is a proper subspecies of u” is the condition that is necessary to form the complement ¬a. There is also a condition for the existence of an intersection a b, a so-called touch condition, a  χ b 4) expressing that a common element of a and b can be indicated. The appearance of these two conditions, a  ≠ u and a  χ b, is essential in negationless mathematics. It results from the rejection of empty species.

(44-45)

4) “Condition de composabilité” in the papers quoted sub 1).

(45)

1) PAULETTE DESTOUCHES-FÉVRIER; Logique de l'intuitionisme sans négation et logique de l'intuitionisme positif, C. R. de l'Ac. des Sc. Paris, 226 (1948); RENAUD DE BENGY-PUYVALLÉE, Sur les règles de composabilité dans la logique de la mathématique intuitioniste sans négation. C. R. de l'Ac. des Sc. Paris, 226 (1948).

(41)

[contents]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

 

Griss, G.F.C. “Logic of Negationless Intuitionistic Mathematics.” Indagationes Mathematicae (Proceedings) 54 (1951): 41–49.

 

.

29 Mar 2017

Kaufmann (1.3) Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets, “Le concept de sous-ensemble flou” / “The Concept of a Fuzzy Subset”

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, Entry Directory]

[Arnold Kaufman, entry directory]

[Kaufmann’s Introduction to ... Fuzzy Subsets, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. Unless otherwise noted, boldface is my own. Page citations refer to the French edition first / then the English. I apologize in advance for my distracting typos or other mistakes, because proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Arnold Kaufmann

 

Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous

à l’usage des ingénieurs

(Fuzzy sets theory)

1. Eléments théoriques de base

/

Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets.

Vol.1 Fundamental Theoretical Elements

 

Ch.1

Notions de base

Fundamental Notions

 

1.3

Le concept de sous-ensemble flou

The Concept of a Fuzzy Subset

 

 

Brief summary:

A fuzzy subset is one where the members admit of a variety of degrees of membership, ranging from 0 for not at all a member to 1 for fully a member, with all the decimal values between for the varying degrees of membership. We use a wavy line under the set name to designate it as a fuzzy subset, or we may use the wavy line under the set inclusion symbol.

image

We can define the members by assigning to them the set of values, partial or full, from a set M.

image

Fuzzy membership could also be written using the wavy line under the membership symbol.

image

We can also designate the degree of membership by writing it under the membership symbol.

image

Fuzzy subsets allow us to define imprecise concepts, like the fuzzy subset of integers very near 0. As we move away from 0, the membership values will decrease.

 

 

 

Summary

 

[In the prior section 1.2, Kaufman had an example of two sets:

E = {x1, x2, x3, x4, x5}

A = {x2, x3, x5}

(Here the E seems to operate like a domain of discourse). We can notate this using a valuation function μ which assigns 1 when a member is in a set and 0 when it is not, so:

μA(x) = 1 if xA

            = 0 if xA

We can then designate the memberships for A as:

A = μA(x1) = 0,   μA(x2) = 1, μA(x3) = 1,  μA(x4) = 0, μA(x5) = 1

We can also write these as pairs in this way:

A = {(x1, 0), (x2, 1), (x3, 1), (x4, 0), (x5, 1)}

(page 2).] In the example [see above] from the prior section, we designated members of E as either belonging to A or not belonging to A. The valuation function μ (or “characteristic function” as it is called here) only takes one of two values, 0 and 1. (p.4/4)

 

Kaufmann then has us think that the valuation function μ can take any value between 0 and 1. This allows for partial membership in the subset.

Imagine now that this characteristic function may take any value whatsoever in the interval [0, 1]. Thus, an element xi of E may not be a member of A (μA = 0), could be a member of A a little (μA near 0), may more or less be a member of A (μA neither too near 0 nor too near 1), could be strongly a member of A (μA near 1), or finally might be a member of A (μA = 1). In this manner the notion of membership takes on an interesting extension and leads, as we shall see, to very useful developments.

(4/4)

 

Such subsets are called fuzzy subsets, and they are notated by either placing a wavy line under the subset name or under the subset symbol. The degree of membership is then notated by writing the value under the membership symbol. [Perhaps we might say that we deal with fuzzy subsets rather than fuzzy sets, because we always need a domain of discourse whose members are established, and then these fully established members in the domain can then be said to be partial members of fuzzy subsets.]

image

(4/4)

 

So consider the fuzzy subset 3.1 above. We see that some members are only partially so. [His next point seems to be that we can use fuzzy subsets when dealing with vague predicates where there is still a scale of fittingness for that predicate. Let me quote.]

Thus, the fuzzy subset defined by (3.1) contains a little x1, does not contain x2, contains a little more x3, contains x4 completely, and a large part of x5. This will allow us to construct a mathematical structure with which one may be able to manipulate concepts that are rather poorly defined but for which membership in a subset is somewhat hierarchical. Thus, one may consider: in the set of men, the fuzzy subset of very tall men; in the set of basic colors, the fuzzy subset of deep green colors; in the set of decisions, a fuzzy subset of good decisions; and so forth. We shall go on to see how to manipulate these concepts that seem particularly well adapted to the imprecision prevalent in the social sciences.

(4/4)

 

Kaufmann then gives Zadah’s rigorous definition, Z1. [Let us look first at the example, as it can help understand the structures.

image

(6/6)

Here we see that E is like the domain of discourse, because it has all the possible members. M is the set of membership degrees or values that any member can take. We then define a fuzzy subset A by giving ordered pairs, where the first of the pair is the member name, and the second is the assigned partial value. For some reason, each pairing is enclosed in parentheses and separated by a vertical line. As you will see, there is a special symbol for the function that assigns the partial value to the fuzzy subset member. But I think I am misreading the notation for (3.4). The second member of the pair is ∀x∈E. But I do not know exactly what that would be, as something you could designate as a second member of an ordered pair. It does not seem to show in the examples. Please consult the text below to interpret it for yourself.]

image

(5/5)

 

[Kaufmann then restructures the above definition for Boolean functions. I am not sure what the important differences are.]

image

(5/5)

 

Of course:

image

(5/5)

 

Kaufmann then notes that “Thus, the notion of fuzzy subset is linked with the notion of a set and allows one to study, using mathematical structures, imprecise concepts” (5/5).

 

He next gives some examples for such imprecise concepts:

the fuzzy subset of numbers x approximately equal to a given real number n, where nR (R being the set of reals);

the fuzzy subset of integers very near 0;

let a be a real number and let x be a small positive increment given to a; then the numbers a + x form a fuzzy subset in the set of reals;

let H be an element of a lattice; the elements most near to H in the order relation form a fuzzy subset in the set of elements of the lattice.

(5/5, boldface his)

 

Kaufmann will use boldface to designate sets or subsets, and the wavy line under them to designate fuzzy subsets.

image

(5/5)

image

(6/6)

 

Kaufmann then uses these symbols to notate fuzzy membership.

image

(6/6)

 

We may also write the degree of membership under the membership symbol.

image

(6/6)

 

[Kaufmann then illustrates with three examples. The first one we already examined above. The second one is interesting, because it might remind us of Nolt’s example of a vague predicate, where each iteration of a statement in which we increase a figure by 1 we also decrease the truth value by a small amount. See Nolt Logics section 16.1.]

image

(6/6)

 

[Example three introduces some alternate notation. See p.7/7.]

 

 

 

From:

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975 [1973]. Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous à l’usage des ingénieurs (Fuzzy sets theory). 1: Eléments théoriques de base. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. 2nd Edn. Paris: Masson.

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. Vol.1: Fundamental Theoretical Elements. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. English translation by D.L. Swanson. New York / San Francisco / London: Academic Press.

 

 

.

Kaufmann (1.2) Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets, “Rappel sur la notion d’appartenance” / “Review of the Notion of Membership”

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, Entry Directory]

[Arnold Kaufman, entry directory]

[Kaufmann’s Introduction to ... Fuzzy Subsets, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. Unless otherwise noted, boldface is my own. Page citations refer to the French edition first / then the English. I apologize in advance for my distracting typos or other mistakes, because proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Arnold Kaufmann

 

Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous

à l’usage des ingénieurs

(Fuzzy sets theory)

1. Eléments théoriques de base

/

Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets.

Vol.1 Fundamental Theoretical Elements

 

Ch.1

Notions de base

Fundamental Notions

 

1.2

Rappel sur la notion d’appartenance

Review of the Notion of Membership

 

 

Brief summary:

Set A being a subset of E is written:

A ⊂ E

x being a member of A is written:

x ∈ A

We can also describe membership using a valuation function μ:

μA(x) = 1 if xA

            = 0 if xA

The complement of a set is notated by writing a line above its symbol. We can calculate whether or not some element is a member of a union or intersection of sets by using Boolean operations.

μA ∩B(x) = μA (x) .  μB(x)

image

 

μA ∪B(x) = μA (x) + μB(x)

image

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

[Kaufmann will define membership and subset inclusion. See especially Suppes’ Introduction to Logic sections 9.1-9.2 and section 9.3 for another great introduction to the concepts and notation.]

We suppose that E is a set and A is a subset of E. We then would write:

A ⊂ E.

(Kaufmann p.1/1). [This symbol is used to mean a proper subset, in Suppes’ text; (if all the members of one set are included in a second, but not all of the second are included in the first, then we call the first a proper subset of the second)]

Suppose E has an element x. If it is a member of A, we write it:

x A.

[The next idea seems to be that we can describe membership using a valuation function.]

In order to indicate this membership one may also use another concept, a characteristic function μA(x), whose value indicates (yes or no) whether x is a member of A:

μA(x) = 1 if xA

            = 0 if xA.

(p.1/1)

 

Kaufmann then gives an example. Here we have two sets with members:

E = {x1, x2, x3, x4, x5}

A = {x2, x3, x5}

(As you can see, the E seems to function like a domain of discourse).

We can then designate the memberships for A as:

A = μA(x1) = 0,   μA(x2) = 1, μA(x3) = 1,  μA(x4) = 0, μA(x5) = 1

We can also write these as pairs in this way:

A = {(x1, 0), (x2, 1), (x3, 1), (x4, 0), (x5, 1)}

(2/2)

 

Kaufmann next has us consider Boolean binary algebra. [Recall the following from Suppes’ Introduction section 9.5:

Certain operations can be performed on sets. If we find all the members shared in common between two sets, we are finding their intersection ():

(x)(x A B xA & xB)

When two intersecting sets share no members in common, that is, when they are mutually exclusive sets, their intersection is the empty set. The set containing all the members in total from two sets is their union ():

(x)(x ABx A xB)

All the members in set A that are not in set B is the difference () of A and B.

(x)(x A B x A & x B)

And recall the following from section 9.6. A domain of individuals (also called a domain of discourse) is a specific set.  We use the symbol “V” to denote a domain. Suppose we have a domain V and a set A. The complement of A relative to the domain are all those items in the domain that are not in A. We symbolize it either as V∼A or just ∼A. In section 9.9 he noted a number of identities (here Λ is the empty set and ~ is the complement):

Suppes. 9.9a

] [In the following, I cannot duplicate the notation using typographical symbols, so I will paste images for certain parts. A set’s complement has all the members in the domain that the first set lacks. The intersection of sets are all those members shared by both sets. Thus the intersection of a set and its complement will be empty. The union of sets are all those found in either set. So the union of a set and its complement will be all those in the domain.]

 

image

(2/2)

 

Kaufmann next will examine intersections in terms of Boolean products. We first consider two subsets, A and B, and their intersection A ∩ B. We thus can make the following determinations:

μA(x) = 1 if xA

            = 0 if xA ,

μB(x) = 1 if xB

            = 0 if x ∉ B ,

μA ∩ B(x) = 1 if x ∈ A ∩ B

            = 0 if xA ∩ B.

(2/2)

[The next piece of notation is a ‘.’, which seems aligned not above the base-line but right at it, like a period. I am not sure what it means at this point. I first I thought it was like arithmetical multiplication, which would hold in this case, but the ‘+’ operation to follow does not add the 1 values to get 2. It instead seems to be an operator that simply should be understood as conjunction, and + as disjunction.]

image

(2/2)

image

(3/3)

We then define the union of two subsets A and B by using the ‘+’ or Boolean sum operator [which seems to correspond to disjunction.]

μA ∪B(x) = 1 if x ∈ A ∪ B

            = 0 if x ∉ A ∪ B

μA ∪B(x) = μA (x) + μB(x)

or

image

(3/3)

 

[Kaufmann then gives more examples of these operations and also adds to them complementarity. See page 3/3.]

 

 

 

 

From:

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975 [1973]. Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous à l’usage des ingénieurs (Fuzzy sets theory). 1: Eléments théoriques de base. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. 2nd Edn. Paris: Masson.

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. Vol.1: Fundamental Theoretical Elements. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. English translation by D.L. Swanson. New York / San Francisco / London: Academic Press.

 

 

.

Kaufmann (1.1) Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets, “Introduction”

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, Entry Directory]

[Arnold Kaufman, entry directory]

[Kaufmann’s Introduction to ... Fuzzy Subsets, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. Unless otherwise noted, boldface is my own. Page citations refer to the French edition first / then the English. I apologize in advance for my distracting typos or other mistakes, because proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Arnold Kaufmann

 

Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous

à l’usage des ingénieurs

(Fuzzy sets theory)

1. Eléments théoriques de base

/

Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets.

Vol.1 Fundamental Theoretical Elements

 

Ch.1

Notions de base

Fundamental Notions

 

1.1

Introduction

 

 

Brief summary:

We will deal with fuzzy subsets and not fuzzy sets, starting first with a review of sets.

 

 

 

Summary

 

Kaufmann will first review basic notions regarding sets, because we will apply or modify many of these notions when describing fuzzy subsets (1/1).

 

Kaufmann will proceed slowly for those less adept with mathematics (1/1).

 

The reader can check their understanding by examining the examples. But Chapter 1 will not be the challenging part. It gets difficult starting with the second chapter (1/1).

 

As we will see, we will deal with fuzzy subsets and not fuzzy sets. This theory is useful. Although what this theory does can be accomplished with other concepts, it is most effectively expressed in terms of fuzziness (1/1).

 

 

 

From:

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975 [1973]. Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous à l’usage des ingénieurs (Fuzzy sets theory). 1: Eléments théoriques de base. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. 2nd Edn. Paris: Masson.

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. Vol.1: Fundamental Theoretical Elements. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. English translation by D.L. Swanson. New York / San Francisco / London: Academic Press.

 

 

.

Kaufmann (symbols list) Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets, “Liste des principaux symboles” / “List of Principal Symbols”

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, Entry Directory]

[Arnold Kaufman, entry directory]

[Kaufmann’s Introduction to ... Fuzzy Subsets, entry directory]

 

[The following presents the symbols Kaufmann uses in his book. It is presented here for the sake of commentary on his text (see the other entries here), to be used for research and teaching. As the symbols do not exist typographically, they are reproduced photographically here. Owners please contact me if you do not approve of this usage.]

 

 

 

Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous

à l’usage des ingénieurs

(Fuzzy sets theory)

1. Eléments théoriques de base

/

Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets.

Vol.1 Fundamental Theoretical Elements

 

Liste des principaux symboles

List of Principal Symbols

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975 [1973]. Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous à l’usage des ingénieurs (Fuzzy sets theory). 1: Eléments théoriques de base. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. 2nd Edn. Paris: Masson.

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. Vol.1: Fundamental Theoretical Elements. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. English translation by D.L. Swanson. New York / San Francisco / London: Academic Press.

 

.

Kaufmann (preface) Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets, “Avertissement” / “Preface”

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, Entry Directory]

[Arnold Kaufman, entry directory]

[Kaufmann’s Introduction to ... Fuzzy Subsets, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. Unless otherwise noted, boldface is my own. Page citations refer to the French edition first / then the English. I apologize in advance for my distracting typos or other mistakes, because proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Arnold Kaufmann

 

Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous

à l’usage des ingénieurs

(Fuzzy sets theory)

1. Eléments théoriques de base

/

Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets.

Vol.1 Fundamental Theoretical Elements

 

Avertissement

Preface

(by Arnold Kaufmann)

 

 

Brief summary:

The elements of fuzzy subsets are members in an “uncertain fashion” rather than in the certain fashion of classical sets where elements either are or are not in the set. The theory worked out here is about fuzzy subsets and not fuzzy sets, because “the reference set will always be an ordinary set, that is, [...] a collection of well-specified and distinct objects” (xii/xiii-xiv). This theory of fuzzy subsets will prove especially useful for designing intelligent machines so that they can handle fuzzy information, like human minds can.

 

 

 

Summary

 

Kaufmann notes that our scientific knowledge of the world is limited to the models, representations, “more or less true” laws, and “acceptable approximations in the state of our knowledge” that we use to study the world (ix/xi). [I am not sure about his next point, so I will quote it. It might be that the only confirmation we have of one model is that made by means of another model, and although they continue to correct one another, there will not be a perfect representation of the world, at least until some great revolution in ideas allows for a better means of representation. Here is the quotation:]

And the model of something for one is not exactly the same model of this thing for another; the formula may remain the same, but the interpretation may be different. The universe is perceived with the aid of models that are indeed perfecting themselves through embodying one in another, at least until some revolution in ideas appears, no longer permitting a correct embodyment.

(ix/xi)

 

But human thinking, unlike computer cognition, is fuzzy. This is partly because we use global or parallel reasoning which is necessarily fuzzy (ix/xi). And there is a lot of room for alterations and adaptation in human learning (ix/xi).

 

Kaufmann then wonders how we might introduce this real fuzziness into our mathematical systems (ix/xi).

 

Kaufmann then distinguishes classical and fuzzy membership.

For a mathematician, what does the word fuzzy signify (or synonymous words)? This will mean that an element is a member of a subset only in an uncertain fashion; while, on the other hand, in mathematics we understand that there are only two acceptable situations for an element: being a member of or not being a member of a subset. Any normal logic, boolean logic, rests on this base: membership or nonmembership in a subset of a reference set.

(x/xi, italics his)

 

L.A. Zadeh’s innovation was to allow for “weighted membership. An element may then belong more or less to a subset, and, from there, introducing the fundamental concept, that of a fuzzy subset” (x/xii).

 

The multivalued or n-ary logics of Post (1921), Lukasiewicz (1937), and Moisil (1940) opened the way for fuzzy logic. The two schools of fuzzy logic that emerged are of Zadeh and Moisil (x/xii).

 

One objection to fuzzy logic is that what it accomplishes can be accomplished by other systems. But this objection can be raised for almost any important system. [That in itself does not diminish the value of any system, so it should not diminish the value of fuzzy logic.] (x/xii)

 

The theory of fuzzy subsets should be of great interest to scientists who study fuzzy systems like language and thought, but also to “the literati and artists, those who construct truth and beauty with fuzziness” (x/xii).

 

This book is designed to be as accessible as possible for those with a technical interest in the field (x/xii).

 

Kaufmann added many examples, although for some readers that might make the book too lengthy (xi/xii-xiii).

 

Fuzziness is here limited to variables and configurations, but one could extrapolate from this presentation other conceptual aspects of fuzziness. So, many disciplines could derive value from this material. (xi/xiii).

 

Linear computation machines will be able to handle the fuzzy problems we deal with in this book (xi-xii/xiii).

 

Kaufmann then addresses the question, why do we use the term fuzzy “subset” and not fuzzy “set”? He explains that this is because “the reference set will always be an ordinary set, that is, such as one defined intuitively in modern mathematics, that is again, a collection of well-specified and distinct objects. It is the subsets that will be fuzzy, as we shall see” (xii/xiii-xiv).

 

Volume 1 presents the theory, while Volume 2 applies it to such areas as “fuzzy languages, fuzzy systems, fuzzy automata, fuzzy algorithms, machines and control, decision problems in a fuzzy universe, recognition of forms, problems of classification and selection, documentary research, etc.” (xii/xiv).

 

Kaufmann then thanks a number of people who helped with the production of this book (xii/xiv).

 

He especially thanks his son Alain for his corrections (xii/xiv).

 

Kaufmann notes that the human mind will “remain fuzzy and creative” (xii/xiv). [The French Avertissement ends here, and then there begins another one for the second edition. Part of that is found in English edition as a continuation of its Preface.]

 

Kaufmann then notes that he corrected a number of errors for this second edition (xiii/xiv). In the French edition he mentions some features of the text, like the extensive Bibliography, also his new volumes, and he calls upon his readers to work together on furthering our knowledge by means of these findings (xiii).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From:

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975 [1973]. Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous à l’usage des ingénieurs (Fuzzy sets theory). 1: Eléments théoriques de base. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. 2nd Edn. Paris: Masson.

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. Vol.1: Fundamental Theoretical Elements. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. English translation by D.L. Swanson. New York / San Francisco / London: Academic Press.

 

 

.

28 Mar 2017

Zadeh (Foreword) in Kaufmann Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets, “Préface” / “Foreword”

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, Entry Directory]

[Arnold Kaufman, entry directory]

[Kaufmann’s Introduction to ... Fuzzy Subsets, entry directory]

 

[The following is summary. Unless otherwise noted, boldface is my own. Page citations refer to the French edition first / then the English. I apologize in advance for my distracting typos or other mistakes, because proofreading is incomplete.]

 

 

 

Summary of

 

Arnold Kaufmann

 

Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous

à l’usage des ingénieurs

(Fuzzy sets theory)

1. Eléments théoriques de base

/

Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets.

Vol.1 Fundamental Theoretical Elements

 

Foreword

by L.A. Zadeh

 

 

Brief summary:

Fuzzy sets are “classes with unsharp boundaries in which the transition from membership to nonmembership is gradual rather than abrupt” (Zadeh ix). The reliance on classical sets in studies of human life and in human or artificial cognition has limited these efforts, because the real world and human thinking involve fuzziness.

 

 

 

Summary

 

The theory of fuzzy subsets tries to bring together precise mathematics with the “pervasive imprecision of the real world” (Zadeh v/ix). This is also an effort to better understand mental cognition.

 

At the time of this writing, artificial intelligence science has been unable to replicate the many types of human cognition (v/ix).

 

The reason for this is that human cognition has the ability to process imprecise data, while computers do not (v-vi/ix).

 

“The fundamental concept in mathematics is that of a set – a collection of objects” (vi/ix). However, Zadeh thinks that most human cognition uses fuzzy sets or subsets:

We have been slow in coming to the realization that much perhaps most, of human cognition and interaction with the outside world involves constructs which are not sets in the classical sense, but rather “fuzzy sets” (or subsets), that is, classes with unsharp boundaries in which the transition from membership to nonmembership is gradual rather than abrupt. Indeed, it may be argued that much of the logic of human reasoning is not the classical two-valued or even multivalued logic but a logic with fuzzy truths, fuzzy connectives, and fuzzy rules of inference.

(vi/ix)

 

Because we have sought precision in our scientific endeavors, we have tried to make the real world fit into mathematical models that leave no room for fuzziness. We have even tried to use such precision to understand human individual and social behavior. Zadeh thinks this is a doomed project (vi/ix).

In our quest for precision, we have attempted to fit the real world to mathematical models that make no provision for fuzziness. We have tried to describe the laws governing the behavior of humans, both singly and in groups, in mathematical terms similar to those employed in the analysis of inanimate systems. This, in my view, has been and will continue to be a misdirected effort, comparable to our long-forgotten searches for the perpetuum mobile and the philosopher’s stone.

(vi/ix)

 

Instead, Zadeh argues that we need to incorporate fuzziness into our concepts and techniques for studying reality and human life (ix).

What we need is a new point of view, a new body of concepts and techniques in which fuzziness is accepted as an all pervasive reality of human existence. Clearly, we need an understanding of how to deal with fuzzy sets within the framework of classical mathematics. More important, we have to develop novel methods of treating fuzziness in a systematic – but not necessarily quantitative – manner. Such methods could open many new frontiers in psychology, sociology, political science, philosophy, physiology, economics, | linguistics, operations research, management science, and other fields, and provide a basis for the design of systems far superior in artificial intelligence to those we can conceive today.

(vi-vii/ix-x)

 

Ladeh then praises Kaufmann’s text. It is thorough and lucid, and it is the “first systematic exposition” of fuzzy subset theory (vii/x).

 

This text will deal with the mathematical aspects of fuzzy subsets, and it should prove useful to engineers and artificial intelligence programmers, because among other things, it details the notion of fuzzy algorithms (vii/x).

 

Zadeh thinks this book will prove highly influential (x).

 

 

 

 

 

From:

L.A. Zadeh’s “Préface” / “Foreword”  in

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975 [1973]. Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous à l’usage des ingénieurs (Fuzzy sets theory). 1: Eléments théoriques de base. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. 2nd Edn. Paris: Masson.

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. Vol.1: Fundamental Theoretical Elements. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. English translation by D.L. Swanson. New York / San Francisco / London: Academic Press.

 

 

.

Kaufmann. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets, entry directory

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index tabs are found at the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Logic and Semantics, Entry Directory]

[Arnold Kaufman, entry directory]

 

 

 

Entry Directory for

 

Arnold Kaufmann

 

Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous

à l’usage des ingénieurs

(Fuzzy sets theory)

1. Eléments théoriques de base

/

Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets.

Vol.1 Fundamental Theoretical Elements

Préface / Foreword by L.A. Zadeh

 

Avertissement / Preface by Kaufmann

 

Liste des principaux symboles / List of Principal Symbols

 

Ch.1

Notions de base

Fundamental Notions

 

1.1

Introduction

 

1.2

Rappel sur la notion d’appartenance

Review of the Notion of Membership

 

1.3

Le concept de sous-ensemble flou

The Concept of a Fuzzy Subset

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975 [1973]. Introduction à la théorie des sous-ensembles flous à l’usage des ingénieurs (Fuzzy sets theory). 1: Eléments théoriques de base. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. 2nd Edn. Paris: Masson.

 

Kaufmann, Arnold. 1975. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets. Vol.1: Fundamental Theoretical Elements. Foreword by L.A. Zadeh. English translation by D.L. Swanson. New York / San Francisco / London: Academic Press.

 

 

.

14 Mar 2017

Suppes’ Introduction to Logic, collected brief summaries

 

by Corry Shores

 

[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

 

[Central Entry Directory]

[Logic & Semantics, Entry Directory]

[Patrick Suppes, entry directory]

[Suppes, Introduction to Logic, entry directory]

 

[The following collects the brief summaries for certain sections of Patrick SuppesIntroduction to Logic, and in some cases Suppes’ examples are replicated too. All the following is Suppes’ work, boiled down for quick reference or review.]

 

The entry directory without the brief summaries can be found here:

Suppes, Introduction to Logic, entry directory




Collected Brief Summaries of

 

Patrick Suppes


Introduction to Logic


Ch. 3 Symbolizing Everyday Language

 

§3.2 Terms

 

A term is an expression that either (a) names or describes some object, or (b) generates a name or a description for some object whenever we replace the expression’s variables with names or with descriptions. Thus “x + y” both contains terms, namely, x and y, because these variables can be replaced with specific numerals, and also, the whole expression “x + y” itself  is a term, because after its variables are substituted, it expresses the value 5.

 

 

§3.3 Predicates

 

Predication can be expressed as a relation. In this text, we use lower-case letters for variables and upper-case letters for relations. We would write “For every x, x is red or x is not red” as: For every x, Rx ∨ –Rx. Predicates can be either one-place, two-place, or n-place, depending on the number of terms the predicate relates.

 

 

§3.4 Quantifiers

 

The variables in our propositions can be quantified. If the variable applies to all such things, it is universally quantified. The sentence “Everyone is a miser” could be expressed “For all x, x is a miser” and rendered symbolically [in Suppes’ text] as:  (x)(x is a miser). If however the variable applies to some or to just one such thing, it is existentially quantified. The sentence “something is greater than zero” could be expressed “there is an x such that x is greater than 0” and symbolically rendered as: (∃x)(x > 0). More quantifiers can be added, as in (∃x)(∃y)(∃z)(x + y = z + 2). To symbolize common nouns, we can use relational predicates and quantifiers. First consider an example with universal quantification, “All freshmen are intelligent”. It should be written with the conditional as: (x)(Fx Ix), meaning “For all x, if x is a freshman then x is intelligent”. But the structure is different for existential quantification. “Some freshmen are intelligent” should be rendered with the conjunction as: (∃x)(Fx & Ix).

 

 

§3.5 Bound and Free variables

 

Atomic formulas are predicates followed or flanked by the appropriate number of terms as arguments. A formula more generally is either an atomic formula or a more complex formula built by adding or being combined by operators (–, &, ∨, →, ↔) or quantifiers ([the universal quantifier has no symbol before the variable here], ∃). The scope of the quantifier is the smallest formula following it, when that formula has no parentheses. Or it is whatever lies within the left-most parenthesis following the quantifier(s) and its right- sided partner. A variable in a formula is bound when it falls within the scope of the quantifier that uses it, and it is free otherwise. A sentence is a formula with no free variables in it.

Suppes intro p.53

 

 

Ch. 9 Sets

 

§9.1 Introduction

and

§9.2 Membership

 

A set is any kind of a collection of entities of any sort, and the members are said to “belong to” the set. This membership relation is symbolized ∈, and the set members are listed between braces, {}. If two sets have the same members, then those two sets are identical. This is the principle of extensionality for sets. There is an empty set, which has no members, and it is here symbolized Λ. Set {{1,2}} is not identical with set {1,2}, because the first set has one member, namely, {1,2}, and the second has these two members: 1,2. Most sets do not include themselves as members. And the membership relation is not symmetric, so from AB it does not follow that BA. The order of the members does not matter, so {1,3,5}={1,5,3}. And we do not count an element of a set twice, so {1,1,3,5}={1,3,5}. Also, the relation of set membership is not transitive. So from A∈B and B∈C, it does not follow that A∈C. For example, 2∈{1,2} and {1,2}∈{{1,2},{3,4}}. However, 2∉{{1,2},{3,4}}. We can understand properties in terms of set membership by saying that a thing has a given property if and only if it belongs to the set of things having this property. And finally, we can express the principle of the identity of indiscernibles in terms of set membership by saying that if y belongs to every set to which x belongs, then y=x.

 

 

§9.3 Inclusion

 

Set inclusion is different from set membership. To say one set is included in another is to say that all the terms belonging to the first also belong to the second. However, to say that one set is a member of another set is to say that the first set as a singular whole is one of the terms in the other set. We symbolize set inclusion with the ⊆ symbol. And if all the members of one set are included in a second, but not all of the second are included in the first, then we call the first a proper subset of the second, and we symbolize it with ⊂. We can distinguish set identity, set membership, and set inclusion with these examples, respectively: “Elizabeth II = the present Queen of England,” “Elizabeth II ∈ the class of women,” and “The class of women ⊆ the class of human beings”, noting that despite this symbolic distinction, in everyday language the symbols (=, ∈, and ⊆) in these sentences can all be substituted with the same word, “is”. We can also distinguish set identity, membership, and inclusion using the concepts of symmetry and transitivity. (a) Identity ≠ inclusion, because identity is symmetric but inclusion is not. (b) Inclusion ≠ membership, because inclusion is transitive, but membership is not. And (c) identity ≠ membership, because identity is both symmetric and transitive, but membership is neither.

 

 

§9.4 The Empty Set

 

The empty set has no members. It is a subset of all other sets, even if it is not explicitly specified as a member. And the empty set is the only set that can be a subset of the empty set.

 

 

§9.5 Operations on Sets

 

Certain operations can be performed on sets. If we find all the members shared in common between two sets, we are finding their intersection ():

(x)(x A B xA & xB)

When two intersecting sets share no members in common, that is, when they are mutually exclusive sets, their intersection is the empty set. The set containing all the members in total from two sets is their union ():

(x)(x ABx A xB)

All the members in set A that are not in set B is the difference () of A and B.

(x)(x A B x A & x B)

These operations can be iterated.

 

 

§9.6 Domains and Individuals

 

A domain of individuals (also called a domain of discourse) is a specific set. For example, in sociology, if we speak of the set of albinos, we implicitly mean only those albinos within the specific set (within the domain) of humans. We use the symbol “V” to denote a domain. Suppose we have a domain V and a set A. The complement of A relative to the domain are all those items in the domain that are not in A. We symbolize it either as V∼A or just ∼A.

 

 

§9.7 Translating Everyday Language

 

Formulations of the sort “All ... are ...” as in “All Americans are philosophers” can be translated into set notation as AP. In this and in the other cases, either both blanks would be filled by common nouns or the first with a common noun and the second with an adjective. When the second blank is filled by an adjective, we need to convert it to a set name. So “All Americans are mortal” would be translated as “The class of Americans are included in the class of mortal beings” or AM. “Some ... are ...” formulations, like, “Some Americans are philosophers”, can be translated to A P ≠ Λ. (Here Λ is the empty set.)  Note, from the “Some S are P” formulations, we can infer that their intersection is not an empty set. However, for “All S are P” formulations, their intersection can in fact be an empty set.  We translate “No ... are ...” formulations, like “No Americans are philosophers” as A P = Λ. And “Some ... are not ...” formulations, like “Some Americans are not philosophers”, are translated A ∩ ∼P ≠ Λ. More complicated expressions need more complicated interpretations. “All Americans are clean and strong” could be A C ∩ S. “Fools and drunk men are truth tellers” could be (FD) ⊆ T. “Some Frenchmen drink wine” could be F W ≠ Λ. “Some Americans drink both coffee and milk” could be A C ∩ M Λ. And “Some Americans who drink tea do not drink either coffee or milk” could be (A T) ∩ ∼(C M) Λ.

 

 

§9.8 Venn Diagrams

 

We may depict sets and their relations and properties using Venn diagrams. A rectangle signifies the domain of individuals. Inside it we draw circles to represent sets. These circles may overlap to designate intersections. We can shade regions to mean there are no members there. An x-shaped cross signifies that a particular region has at least one member. However, if an x-shaped cross is linked by a line to another cross, that means at least one of the crosses’ connected regions is non-empty (and thus some, but not all, of the linked cross regions can be empty, despite them having a cross marking). When statements about the set-relations are logically consistent, then a crossed region that is also shaded as empty is really empty, because the shading dominates the crossing. However, if the statements are inconsistent, then this inconsistency might be apparent in a dually shaded and crossed region that should still retain its member despite the shading. Syllogistic inferences can be tested by constructing a diagram for the premises, and then we see if the conclusion is compatible with what is depicted.

 

Two mutually exclusive sets.

A B = Λ

Suppes. 9.8 a

 

All A are B.

A B

Suppes. 9.8 b

 

A B (all A are B) and B C = Λ, (i.e., no B are C)

Untitled

A B = Λ

Suppes. 9.8 d

A B; “for to say that A is a subset of B means that no part of A lies outside B” (197).

Suppes. 9.8 f

A B = Λ and A B.

Suppes. 9.8 e

 

Some A are B: A B ≠ Λ. [x means the regions is not empty.]

Suppes. 9.8 g

 

Some A are either B or C: A ∩ (B C) ≠ Λ

Suppes. 9.8 ak

 

A B ≠ Λ        (Something is either A or B)
A ∪ ~C ≠ Λ     (Something is either A or not C)
Suppes. 9.8 w

 

A C ≠ Λ     (Some A are C)
CB               (All C are B)

Suppes. 9.8 ag

 

Checking syllogisms.

(1) No B are C
(2) All A are B
(3) Therefore no Aare C
Suppes. 9.8 an

[Since all the shared regions between A and C are shaded, it is a valid inference.]

 

 

§9.9 Elementary Principles About Operations on Sets

 

There are a number of tautological equivalences that can be useful when making proofs about sets. Here is a list [note that Λ is the empty set and V is the domain of discourse]:

Suppes. 9.9a

As we can see, the list expresses a number of properties, like identity,  commutativity, distributivity, associativity, excluded middle, non-contradiction, idempotency, absorption, and De Morgan’s laws.

 

 

Ch. 10. Relations

 

§10.1 Ordered Couples

 

An ordered couple is two objects given in a fixed order. We list the items in a series, separated by commas and placed between angle brackets, for example: ⟨x, y⟩. Two ordered couples are identical just when the first member of one is identical with the first member of the other, and the second member of one is identical with the second member of the other:

x, y⟩ = ⟨u, v⟩ ↔ (x = u & y = v)

We can have ordered triples, quadruples, and so on. Generally speaking, we can have any-numbered ordered n-tuples. We define them all on the basis of ordered couples. An ordered triple, for example, would be:

x, y, z⟩ = ⟨⟨x, y⟩, z

and an ordered n-tuple:

x1, x2, ..., xn⟩ = ⟨⟨x1, x2, ..., xn-1⟩, xn

In sets, the repetition of members does not add new members, but in ordered n-tuples it does. So {1,2,2}={1,2}, but ⟨1,2,2⟩≠⟨1,2⟩. S is a finite sequence only if S is an ordered n-tuple, for example: ⟨Socrates, Plato, Democritus, Aristotle⟩. A Cartesian product is all the possible ordered pairs made by taking each element from one set and pairing it with each member of another. So if A={1,2} and B={Gandhi,Nehru} then

A × B = {⟨1, Gandhi⟩, ⟨1, Nehru⟩, ⟨2, Gandhi⟩, ⟨2, Nehru⟩}

 

 

§10.2 Definition of Relations

 

The order of the terms in a relation is often important. So we cannot just think of a predicate taking more than one term as relating members of some set. For, that set needs to have a fixed order. For example, if the relation is love, then it matters who loves whom, as the feeling is not always mutual. We designate such ordered n-tuples with angle brackets: ⟨x, y⟩. The set that can be substituted for the first term is the domain, for the second term, the counterdomain, and the union of both the domain and the counterdomain is the field.

 

(I) A binary relation is a set of ordered couples.

According to this definition the relation of loving is the set of ordered couples ⟨x, y⟩ such that x loves y. The relation of being less than is the set of all ordered couples ⟨x, y⟩ of numbers such that, for some positive number z,

x + z = y.

The obvious extension of (I) is that a relation which holds among three things is a set of ordered triples, and a relation which holds among n things is a set of ordered n-tuples.

A relation is called ‘n-ary’ if its members are n-tuples. For the special cases n = 2 and n = 3 we use special names, speaking of ‘binary’ and ‘ternary’ relations.

Since a relation is a set of ordered n-tuples, we can also use the “∈” notation to indicate that certain things stand in a given relation. Thus we can write:

⟨John, Mary⟩ ∈ L, instead of:

John L Mary

to indicate that John loves Mary. Similarly we can write:

⟨George, Mary, Elizabeth⟩ ∈ P,

instead of :

P(George, Mary, Elizabeth)

to indicate, let us say, that George and Mary are the parents of Elizabeth.

It is necessary to remember that an ordered couple is not a relation, but the set consisting of the ordered couple is. For instance,

⟨Thomas Aquinas, 4⟩ is not a relation;

{⟨Thomas Aquinas, 4⟩} is a relation;

{{⟨Thomas Aquinas, 4⟩}} is not a relation.

The last example of the three is not a relation because the only member of the set is itself a set, which is not an ordered couple.

(quoting Suppes 211)

If R is a binary relation, then the domain of R – in symbols: D(R) – is the set of all things x such that, for some y, ⟨x, y⟩ ∈ R. Thus if M is the | relation which consists of all couples ⟨x, y⟩ such that x is the mother of y, then the domain of M is the set of all women who are not childless. If

R1 = {⟨Λ, Plato⟩, ⟨Jane Austen, 101⟩, ⟨the youngest bride in Tibet, Richelieu⟩},

then

D(R1) = {Λ, Jane Austen, the youngest bride in Tibet}.

The counterdomain (or converse domain) of a binary relation R (in symbols : C(R)) is the set of all things y such that, for some x, ⟨x, y⟩ ∈ R. The counterdomain of the relation M considered just above is the set of all people – since everyone has a mother. If B is the relation which consists of all couples ⟨x, y⟩ such that x is the brother of y, then the domain of B is the set of all men who have at least one brother or sister, and the counterdomain is the set of all people who have at least one brother. We have for the relation R1 defined above:

C(R1) = {Plato, 101, Richelieu}.

The field of a binary relation R (in symbols: F(R)) is the union of its domain and its counterdomain. Thus z belongs to the field of a binary relation R if and only if either ⟨x, z⟩ ∈ R for some x or ⟨z, y⟩ ∈ R for some y. The field of the relation B considered just above is the set of all people who belong to families containing at least two children, at least one of which is male. As another example,

F(R1) = {Λ, Jane Austen, the youngest bride in Tibet, Plato, 101, Richelieu}.

(quoting Suppes 212)

 

 

§10.3 Properties of Binary Relations

 

There are a number of sorts of binary relations. If a relation that relates things to themselves holds for all things, then it is reflexive, and if it holds for no things, then it is irreflexive.

A (binary) relation R is reflexive in the set A if for every x in A, xRx (i.e., ⟨x, x⟩ ∈ R):

R reflexive in A ↔ (x)(x A xRx).

A relation R is irreflexive in the set A if, for every x in A it is not the case that xRx:

R irreflexive in A ↔ (x)(x A → –(xRx)).

When there is a two-place relation, if the order of the relation can be switched for all substitutions, then it is symmetric. If for all substitutions it cannot be switched and still be true, then it is asymmetric.

A relation R is symmetric in the set A if for every x and y in A, whenever xRy, then yRx:

R symmetric in A ↔ (x)(y)[x A & y A & xRy yRx].

A relation R is asymmetric in the set A if, for every x and y in A, whenever xRy, then it is not the case yRx:

R asymmetric in A ↔ (x)(y)[x A & y A & xRy → –(yRx)].

Now ≤ is not symmetric, because although 3 ≤ 3 and 3 ≤ 3, that invertibility does not hold for 2 ≤ 3. It is also not antisymmetric, because although the invertibility does not hold in most cases, it does for 3 ≤ 3. However, it is always symmetric under the condition that both terms are equal to one another. It is thus antisymmetric.

A relation R is antisymmetric in the set A if for every x and y in A, whenever xRy and yRx, then x=y:

R antisymmetric in A ↔ (x)(y)[x A & y A & xRy & yRx x=y].

A relation can also be neither symmetric, asymmetric, nor antisymmetric. One example is the love relation. It is not symmetric, because not every person loves the people who love them. It is also not asymmetric, because there are many cases of mutual love. It is furthermore not antisymmetric, because it is not the case that the only people who are in love are those who love themselves.

A relation is transitive  if it carries over through a middle term.

A relation R is transitive in the set A if, for every x, y, and z in A, whenever xRy and yRz, then xRz:

R transitive in A ↔ (x)(y)(z)[x A & y A & z A & xRy & yRz xRz].

A relation is intransitive if for no things that it relates does the relation of a first item to a second one along with and the second one to a third imply that the relation holds as well for the first to the third. Another idea is the difference between intransitive and non-transitive.

A relation R is intransitive in the set A if for every x, y, and z in A, whenever xRy and yRz, then it is not the case that xRz:

R intransitive in

A ↔ (x)(y)(z)[x A & y A & z A & xRy & yRz → –(xRz)].

Note that a relation can be non-transitive without being intransitive, because for some relations, there is transitivity between some triplets of terms but not between others.

A relation is connected if it relates any member to any other member.

A relation R is connected in the set A if for every x and y in A, whenever xy, then xRy or yRx:

R connected in A (x)(y)(x A & y A & xyxRy yRx).

A relation is strongly connected if it holds for any member with any other member and as well with any member and itself.

A relation R is strongly connected in the set A if for every x and y in A, either xRy or yRx:

R strongly connected in A (x)(y)(x A & y A xRy yRx).

 

 

§10.4 Equivalence Relations

 

A relation is equivalent if it is reflexive (it holds for some object in relation to itself), symmetric (when it holds for one object to a second, it also holds from the second to the first), and transitive (when it holds for one object to a second, and a second to a third, it as well holds for the first object to the third one).  Within a set of members, certain groupings can be formed on the basis of equivalent relations holding among all the members of a particular subgrouping. These are equivalence classes. Forming such classes can allow us to reduce a large set of data to a more manageable size, when the differences between the members within an equivalence class are irrelevant to the particular analysis being conducted.

 

A relation which is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive in the set A is an equivalence relation in A. The relation of identity is an equivalence relation.

(218)

 

 

§10.5 Ordering Relations

 

There are a variety of what are called “ordering relations.” A relation is:

quasi-ordering only if it is both reflexive and transitive;

partial ordering only if is reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive;

simple ordering only if it is reflexive, antisymmetric, transitive, and connected;

strict partial ordering only if it is asymmetric and transitive;

strict simple ordering only if it is asymmetric, transitive, and connected;

weak ordering only if it is transitive and strongly connected.

 

 

§10.6 Operations on Relations

 

Relations can be understood as those subsets they produce when they relate members of some set.

Universal Relation. We find every possible coupling of the members of one set with those same members. The resulting set is that of the universal relation. All other relations as sets will be subsets of the universal relation’s set. Formally:

If V is any domain of individuals, then by the universal relation over V we mean the set of all ordered couples (x, y) where xV and y V, that is, the Cartesian product V × V.

(Suppes 225)

Empty set relation. It is the relation whose corresponding set is empty.

The empty set Λ is the relation which never holds. If R, for instance, is the relation which holds between x and y if and only if x is the mother of y, and y is the mother of x, then R = Λ, for no one is his own grandmother.

(225)

With these notions in mind, we can then see how we apply the normal operations on sets to our relations as sets.

Intersection of relations.

if R and S are relations, then RS is the relation which consists of the intersection of R and S: i.e., x(R S)y if and only if both xRy and xSy.

(Suppes 225)

Union of relations.

RS is the union of R and S: x(RS)y if and only if either xRy or xSy.

(Suppes 225)

Difference of Relations.

R ~ S is the relation such that x(R ~ S)y if and only if xRy and not xSy.

(Suppes 225)

Subrelation.

If RS we call R a subrelation of S. Thus brotherhood is a subrelation of siblinghood; for whenever x is a brother of y, then x is a sibling of y. Every relation is a subrelation of the universal relation over its own field.

(Suppes 226)

There are also operations for binary relations that are not based on these set operators.

Converse of a relation.

The converse of a relation R

10.6.a

is the relation such that, for all x and y, xRy if and only if yRx. Thus the converse of a relation is obtained simply by reversing the order of all the ordered couples which constitute it.

(Suppes 226)

Relative product of two relations. This operation combines two separate relations by finding ones where the second member of one couple (in the first relation) is the same as the first member of the second couple (in the other relation). From these pairings of couples, you make a new couple that takes the first member of the first couple and the second member of the second couple. Being an aunt is an example, with you and your aunt being the end-terms of separate relations (you being the child of your parent, and your parent being the sibling of your aunt), with your parent being the middle term that gets excluded.

If R and S are binary relations, then by the relative product of R and S (in symbols: R/S) we mean the relation which holds between x and y if and only if there exists a z such that R holds between x and z, and S holds between z and y. Symbolically,

x R/S y ↔ (∃z) (xRz & zSy).

If xPy means that x is a parent of y, and xSy means that x is a sister of y, then x(S/P)y means that there is a z such that x is a sister of z and z is a parent of y, and hence such that x is an aunt of y.

(Suppes 226)

Furthermore, the relative product relation can be a reiteration of the same relation.

If xPy when x is a parent of y, then x(P/P)y if and only if x is a grandparent of y; x[(P/P)/P]y if and only if x is a great-grandparent of y; and so on.

(Suppes 226)

 

 

Ch. 11. Functions

 

§11.1 Definition

 

A function is a binary relation that relates to each element of its domain a unique element of its counterdomain:

A function R is a binary relation such that if xRy and xRz then y = z.

Consider the following cases of binary relations:

R1 = {<1, 2>, <Madison, Pinckney>}

R2 = {<1, 2>, <1, 3>, <Plato, Aristotle>}

R1 is a function, but  Ris not, because in R2, the number 1 is related to two members of the counterdomain, namely, 2 and 3, and thus the member of the domain is not related to a unique member of the counterdomain. We often used lowercase letters to symbolize functions, and they normally take the form f(x) = [something]. The domain of a function is called the domain of definition and the counterdomain, the range of values. A function is sometimes said to map its domain onto its range, and thus a function is also called a mapping. And when x is an element of the domain of f, then f(x) is the image of x. A binary operation on the set A is a function whose domain is A × A and whose range is a subset of A. For example, N = the positive integers and + is the binary operation of addition applied to positive integers. In this case, + is a binary operation from N × N to N. The range of + is N ~ {1}, as no two positive integers add up to one.

 

 

§11.2 Operations on Functions

 

The converse of a function has for its pairings of outcomes the same as those of the function except with the order of the couples’ members inverted. Note two things. {1} A function can assign many different members of the domain to the same member of the counterdomain. {2} A function cannot assign the same member of the domain to more than one member of the counter domain. Thus the converse of a function may not itself be a function, if the original function assigned more than one member of the domain to the same member of the counterdomain. However, when the converse of a function is in fact itself a function then we call it the inverse and we note it with a superscript ‘–1’. When solving for an inverse function, there are two important principles:

For every x in the domain of f

(I)      f–1(f(x)) = x,

and for every x in the range of f

(II)      f(f–1(x)) = x.

And a simple, but in some cases flawed, strategy for solving for the inverse has three phases: (i) Substitute ‘f–1(x)’ for ‘x’; (ii) Apply (II);(iii) Solve the resulting equation for ‘f–1(x)’.

 

 

 

 

Suppes, Patrick. Introduction to Logic. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold / Litton Educational, 1957.

.

.