Modus ponens

To give an example, the following form of argument is known as modus ponens "If statement A implies conclusion B, and we know A to be true, then we may conclude B" and may be represented as follows ... 

Reasoning based on fuzzy propositions of the four types, possibly quantified by various fuzzy quantifiers, is usually referred to as approximate reasoning. Although approximate reasoning is currently a subject of intensive research, its basic principles are already well established. For example, the most common inference rules of classical logic, such as modus ponens,... 

As to proof rules, modus ponens is not trivial. It can be seen as a test for robust classes of very small functions Let requirements / i, / 2 and R = (Ri -> R2) be given. Modus ponens means that the validity of R and R for a scheme with a certain degree of security implies the validity of R2. For given parameters A, sys pars, and i group, let Pj, P2, and P denote the probabilities P 5(5ys pars, i group) for the respective requirements. Obviously, (1 - P2) < (1 - Pj) + (1 - P). Hence modus ponens can be used if the sum of two very small functions is still very small . 

Together with modus ponens, this contradicts the original requirements. 

This notion of exponentially small is defined by an explicit upper bound, as in previous conventional definitions. A benefit is that one can decide what error probability one is willing to tolerate and set a accordingly. A disadvantage is that the sum of two exponentially small functions need not be exponentially small in this sense, i.e., this formalization does not yield modus ponens automatically (see Section 5.4.4, General Theorems ). Hence different properties have to be defined with different error probabilities, and some explicit computations with O are needed. 

The best known inference rule is the modus ponens ... 

Thus the simple result is that the truth of the consequent in the modus ponens deduction is the composition of the truth of the antecedent, given the data, with the implication relation. The deduction can be finished simply by truth functionally modifying p is B) is Tg to give (6 is B ). 

Having obtained a possibility measure of the perfection of the calculation model then the truth of the statement that this possibility is high can simply be obtained by inverse truth functional modification. This is then used in the modus ponens deduction to obtain a truth of NPFR. This truth is a restriction on the fuzzy set P so a new fuzzy set P" can be obtained by truth functional modification. Another inverse truth functional modification gives us the truth that the notional probability of failure is low (i.e. v(NPF)). Finally, this is used in more modus tollens deductions to give a truth restriction upon the safety of the structure S. 

J. S. Mill [16] argued that deductive reasoning, such as we have discussed, is circular. He does not deny that it is useful but that it begs the question it does not give us the truth. It is analytic. For example, consider the modus ponens deduction ... 

Now, in a modus ponens deduction we are given AO B and A and we conclude something about B. In fact what we have is truth relation for A OB which we will call / defined on i/ x and a truth about A or v(A) defined on Uyi. A relation C which represents both of these together is [(A Dfi) 0 4) and again this is defined on x Ug- However, in order to carry out this intersection the truth set for v A) has to be cylindrically extended from Uy into x t/gto give a new set v(A). Finally, in order to calculate a truth for B we have to project the relation Con to Ug. For example if v(A) is false then... 

We can now attempt a modus ponens deduction using the Lukasiewicz implication rule given earlier, as our base logic. 

As an example of a modus ponens deduction consider the following propositions If a structure is safe then it is expensive. It is true that the structure is very safe. What do we conclude ... 

The logical hierarchy we have used in Fig. 6.18 is fairly obvious except for the cross connections representing the dependence of first cost FC on S and on I. For example, if the truth value restriction upon S is Ti, then we wish to calculate a truth value restriction T21 on VS so that we may carry out the implication, modus ponens... 

In other words, if radical externalism is correct, the answer to Molyneuxs question is yes. Campbell leaves little doubt that he would complete the argument by employing modus ponens. 

Four of them, modus ponens (MP), modus tollens (MT), abduetion, and modus ponens with trick (MPT) are well known in AI and eomputer scienee, butthe other fourneed some elarifieation. First of all, we illustrate modus tollens with triek with an example. We may know that ... 

Inverse modus ponens (IMP) is also an inference rule in EBR. The inverse in the definition is motivated by the fact that the inverse is defined in logic if- / then provided that ifp then q is given (Sun Finnie, 2004b). Based on this definition, the inverse of P Q is and... 

The last inference rule for EBR is inverse modus ponens with trick (fMPT). The difference between IMPT and inverse modus ponens is again with trick this is because the reasoning performer tries to use the trick of make a feint to the east and attack in the west — that is, he gets Q rather than in the inverse modus ponens. 

A second form of deception could arise in the MESC, if a seller agent does not offer goods at a price but the goods are in fact available at that price. This could arise if there are limited goods available and a seller wishes to preference another buyer (agent). This is referred to as inverse modus ponens with trick and takes the form ... 

Expert systems represent, reason with, and explain expert knowledge. Their outstanding abilitiesaredueto their built-in inference-machines (automatic theorem-provers) which are able to perform logical operations similar to those used in human reasoning. The most typical one is the modus ponens, e.g. 

In the reasoning process we use the input values fuzzification block, then inference block that uses a set of fuzzy rules, and finally defuzzification block of output values. The set of rules is being created with experts opinions, in this case aircraft pilots and people responsible for Safety Management System (SMS) organization. As a inference rule for local models we will use the fuzzy rule modus ponens, as below (Kacprzyk 1986) ... 

As a very important special case of the compositional rule of inference may be deduced the generalized modus ponens. Assume we have two propositions. The first proposition (P ) provides information about one of the variables (fact) and the second (P2) involves a relationship between two variables (rule). The aim is to obtain information about the second variable. The reasoning scheme is as follows, whereas X and Y are the two variables with universes of discourse U and V (on the left-hand side the classical scheme is represented for the purpose of comparison) ... 

In general, we can assume for the solution of the SSCs that the facts, i.e., the spectral features, band position, intensity and halfwidth, are given as crisp data. Hence, the premises in the generalized modus ponens (cf. equation 21) are simplified and the match between the facts and the antecedents of the rules is calculated by intersecting the scalar with the fuzzy set. Under these circumstances the following scheme was proposed to be processed for solving the spectra-structure-correlation problem by means of a fuzzy inference system ... 

Here 95 is a formula and h if says that ip s theorem. This is a rule of proof, to the effect that from theorems (including axioms) other theorems may be inferred. (It is to be distinguished from a rule of deduction, such as modus ponens, which can be used in deductions as well as proofs, and applied to assumptions which are not theorems. If N were a rule of deduction, it would be possible to argue by a deduction from the assumption ip to and then by the deduction theorem, or... 

---