Thanks. So as I understand it, whether a premise is major or minor is defined by its role of its terms relative to a given conconclusion. But the same premise could play a major role relative to once conclusion and a minor role relative to another.
Edward W. Porter Porter & Associates 24 String Bridge S12 Exeter, NH 03833 (617) 494-1722 Fax (617) 494-1822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Pei Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 8:20 AM To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [agi] Do the inference rules of categorical logic make sense? 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: agi@v2.listbox.com > 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/?&; ----- 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=50771155-cc051f
