The "order" here isn't the "incoming order" of the premises. From M-->S(t1) and M-->P(t2), where t1 and t2 are truth values, the rule produces two symmetric conclusions, and which truth function is called depends on the subject/predicate order in the conclusion. That is, S-->P will use a function f(t1,t2), while P-->S will use the symmetric function f(t2,t1).
Pei On 10/6/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are a machine reasoning from pieces of information you receive in > no particular order how do you know which is the major and which is the > minor premise? > > Edward W. Porter > Porter & Associates > 24 String Bridge S12 > Exeter, NH 03833 > (617) 494-1722 > Fax (617) 494-1822 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lukasz Stafiniak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 4:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense? > > > Major premise and minor premise in a syllogism are not interchangeable. > Read the derivation of truth tables for abduction and induction from the > semantics of NAL to learn that different ordering of premises results in > different truth values. Thus while both orderings are applicable, one will > usually give more confident result which will dominate the other. > > On 10/6/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > But I don't understand the rules for induction and abduction which are > > as > > following: > > > > ABDUCTION INFERENCE RULE: > > Given S --> M and P --> M, this implies S --> P to some degree > > > > INDUCTION INFERENCE RULE: > > Given M --> S and M --> P, this implies S --> P to some degree > > > > The problem I have is that in both the abduction and induction rule -- > > unlike in the deduction rule -- the roles of S and P appear to be > > semantically identical, i.e., they could be switched in the two > > premises with no apparent change in meaning, and yet in the conclusion > > switching S and P would change in meaning. Thus, it appears that from > > premises which appear to make no distinctions between S and P a > > conclusion is drawn that does make such a distinction. At least to > > me, with my current limited knowledge of the subject, this seems > > illogical. > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50767869-3791d3
