DOCSLIB.ORG

Relevance Models for Collaborative Filtering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Relevance Models for Collaborative Filtering Relevance Models for Collaborative Filtering Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof.dr.ir. J. T. Fokkema, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties, in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 7 april 2008 om 12:30 uur door Jun Wang MSc in Computer Science from National University of Singapore, Singapore, Bachelor in Electrical Engineering from Southeast University, China, geboren te Jiangsu, China. Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor: Prof.dr.ir. M.J.T. Reinders Toegevoegd promotor: Dr.ir. A.P. de Vries Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Rector Magnificus, voorzitter Prof.dr.ir. M.J.T. Reinders, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Dr.ir. A.P. de Vries, CWI, toegevoegd promotor Prof.dr.ir. G. Jongbloed, Technische Universiteit Delft Prof.dr. S.E. Robertson, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK Prof.dr.ir. M. van Steen, Vrije Universiteit Prof.dr. B. Berendt, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Dr.ir. D. Hiemstra, Universiteit Twente Advanced School for Computing and Imaging This work was carried out in the ASCI graduate school; ASCI dissertation series number 158. The research reported in this thesis was financed by the CACTUS and I-Share projects. ISBN 978-90-9022932-4 Copyright c 2007 by Jun Wang All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. The Master said, “When I walk along with two others, they may serve me as my teachers. I will select their good qualities and follow them, their bad qualities and avoid them.” The Lunyu: BooK VII Shu’er Confucius, 551 BCE - 479 BCE to my family for making it possible Summary Collaborative filtering is the common technique of predicting the interests of a user by collecting preference information from many users. Although it is generally regarded as a key information retrieval technique, its relation to the existing information retrieval theory is unclear. This thesis shows how the de- velopment of collaborative filtering can gain many benefits from information retrieval theories and models. It brings the notion of relevance into collabora- tive filtering and develops several relevance models for collaborative filtering. Besides dealing with user profiles that are obtained by explicitly asking users to rate information items, the relevance models can also cope with the situa- tions where user profiles are implicitly supplied by observing user interactions with a system. Experimental results complement the theoretical insights with improved recommendation accuracy for both item relevance ranking and user rating prediction. Furthermore, the approaches are more than just analogy: our derivations of the unified relevance model show that popular user-based and item-based approaches represent only a partial view of the problem, whereas a unified view that brings these partial views together gives better insights into their relative importance and how retrieval can benefit from their combination. vii Samenvatting Collaborative filtering is een bekende techniek om de interesses van een ge- bruiker te voorspellen aan de hand van gegevens over de voorkeuren van een grote groep gebruikers. De relatie tussen collaborative filtering en de algemeen geaccepteerde theorie voor information retrieval is echter grotendeels onbek- end. Dit proefschrift toont aan dat information retrieval modellen een grote bijdrage kunnen leveren aan de ontwikkeling van collaborative filtering. Het introduceert het begrip relevantie in collaborative filtering, en ontwikkelt ver- volgens een reeks modellen voor dit relevantiebegrip. Naast gebruikersprofielen gebaseerd op expliciete voorkeursinformatie, verkregen door gebruikers te vra- gen objecten te beoordelen, kunnen deze modellen ook gebruik maken van im- pliciete indicatoren van relevantie op basis van waarnemingen over de interactie van gebruikers met objecten. Behalve theoretische inzichten, wijzen de exper- imentele resultaten uit dat deze modellen de gebruikersinteresse nauwkeuriger voorspellen, alsmede relevantere objecten aanbevelen. Bovendien blijkt uit de afleidingen in het proefschrift dat collaborative filtering met information re- trieval theorie niet slechts een mooie metafoor is. De reeds bekende gebruikers- en objectbenaderingen van collaborative filtering blijken slechts een deel van het probleem te beschrijven, terwijl een verenigde kijk op beide deelbenaderingen een beter inzicht geeft in hun relatieve belang en hoe retrieval kan profiteren van hun combinatie. ix Contents Summary vii Samenvatting ix 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Scope ................................. 3 1.1.1 Collaborative Filtering Scenarios . 4 1.1.2 Putting Relevance into Collaborative Filtering . 4 1.1.3 Issues in Collaborative Filtering . 6 1.2 ThesisOutline ............................ 7 1.3 MainContributions.......................... 8 I Relevance Models 11 2 Language Modelling Approaches 13 2.1 Introduction.............................. 14 2.2 Background .............................. 14 2.2.1 Rating-based Collaborative Filtering . 14 2.2.2 Log-based Collaborative Filtering . 15 2.3 A User-Item Relevance Model . 17 xi 2.3.1 Item-based Generation . 18 Probability Estimation and Smoothing . 19 Linear Interpolation Smoothing . 19 2.3.2 User-based Generation . 20 2.3.3 Discussions .......................... 21 InverseItemFrequency . 21 TwoRepresentations. 22 2.4 Experiments.............................. 22 2.5 Conclusions .............................. 25 Commentary on Chapter 2 27 3 Probabilistic Relevance Ranking 31 3.1 Introduction.............................. 32 3.2 RelatedWork............................. 33 3.2.1 Rating Prediction . 33 3.2.2 ItemRanking......................... 34 3.3 A Probabilistic Relevance Ranking Framework . 35 3.3.1 Item-Based Relevance Model . 36 3.3.1.1 Probability Estimation . 38 3.3.2 User-Based Relevance Model . 43 3.3.3 Discussions .......................... 44 3.4 Experiments.............................. 44 3.4.1 DataSets ........................... 44 3.4.2 ExperimentProtocols . 45 3.4.3 Performance ......................... 46 3.4.4 Parameter Estimation . 49 3.5 Conclusions .............................. 50 3.A The Okapi BM25 Document Ranking Score . 53 xii Commentary on Chapter 3 55 4 Personalized Collaborative Tagging 57 4.1 Introduction.............................. 58 4.2 RelatedWork............................. 60 4.3 Personalization Models . 61 4.3.1 IndexingPhase ........................ 63 4.3.1.1 Collaborative Indexing Model . 63 4.3.2 ExploratorySearchPhase . 65 4.3.2.1 Collaborative Browsing Model . 65 4.3.2.2 Collaborative Item Search Model . 66 4.3.3 Discussions .......................... 67 4.4 Experiments.............................. 68 4.4.1 Data Set Preparation . 68 4.4.2 Evaluation Protocols . 69 4.4.3 Performance of Personalization Models . 71 4.4.4 Representation of User Profiles . 72 4.4.5 Impact of Parameters . 74 4.5 Conclusions .............................. 76 4.A ProbabilityEstimation. 77 Commentary on Chapter 4 79 II Unified Models 81 5 Similarity Fusion 83 5.1 Introduction.............................. 84 5.2 RelatedWork............................. 85 5.3 Background .............................. 86 5.3.1 User-based Collaborative Filtering . 86 xiii 5.3.2 Item-based Collaborative Filtering . 88 5.4 SimilarityFusion ........................... 89 5.4.1 IndividualPredictors. 89 5.4.2 Probabilistic Fusion Framework . 90 5.4.3 Probability Estimation . 92 5.4.4 Discussions .......................... 93 5.5 EmpiricalEvaluation. 94 5.5.1 ExperimentalSetup . 94 5.5.2 IndividualPredictors. 96 5.5.3 Impact of Parameters . 96 5.5.4 DataSparsity......................... 97 5.5.5 Comparison to Other Methods . 99 5.6 Conclusions ..............................100 5.A Normalization. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .100 5.B A Unified Weighting Function . 101 6 Unified Relevance Models 103 6.1 Introduction..............................104 6.2 RelatedWork.............................106 6.2.1 Collaborative Filtering . 106 6.2.2 Probabilistic Models for Information Retrieval . 107 6.3 Background ..............................109 6.3.1 User-based Collaborative Filtering . 110 6.3.2 Item-based Collaborative Filtering . 111 6.3.3 Combining User-based and Item-based Approaches . 112 6.4 Probabilistic Relevance Prediction Models . 113 6.4.1 Three Different Relevance Models . 114 6.4.1.1 User-based Relevance Model . 115 6.4.1.2 Item-based Relevance Model . 116 xiv 6.4.1.3 Unified Relevance Model . 116 6.4.2 Probability Estimation . 117 6.4.2.1 Density Estimation for Rating Models . 117 6.4.2.2 Density Estimation for Preference Models . 118 6.4.3 Rating Predictions . 120 6.4.4 Cross-validated EM algorithm . 122 6.4.5 A Generalised Distance Measure . 122 6.4.6 Discussions ..........................125 6.4.7 Computational Complexity . 127 6.4.7.1 Offline Computation . 128 6.4.7.2 Online Computation . 129 6.5 Experiments..............................130 6.5.1 DataSets ...........................130 6.5.2 Evaluation Protocols . 130 6.5.3 Results ............................131 6.5.3.1 Parameter Estimation . 131 6.5.3.2 Sparsity. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..134 6.5.3.3 Comparison to other approaches . 140 6.6 ConclusionsandFutureWork . .142 6.A Cross-validated EM algorithm . 144 Commentary on
Recommended publications
  • Critical Thinking STARS Handout Finalx

    Critical Thinking STARS Handout Finalx

    Critical Thinking "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle "The important thing is not to stop questioning." - Albert Einstein What is critical thinking? Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. A Critical Thinker: Asks pertinent questions Assess statements and arguments Is able to admit a lack of understanding or information Has a sense of curiosity Is interested in finding new solutions Examines beliefs, assumptions and opinions and weighs them against facts Listens carefully to others and can give effective feedback Suspends judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered Look for evidence to support assumptions or beliefs Is able to adjust beliefs when new information is found Examines problems closely Is able to reject information that is irrelevant or incorrect Critical Thinking Standards and Questions: The most significant thinking (intellectual) standards/questions: • Clarity o Could you elaborate further on that point? o Could you give me an example? o Could you express
  • Critical Thinking for the Military Professional

    Critical Thinking for the Military Professional

    Document created: 17 Jun 04 Critical Thinking For The Military Professional Col W. Michael Guillot “Any complex activity, if it is to be carried on with any degree of virtuosity, calls for appropriate gifts of intellect and temperament …Genius consists in a harmonious combination of elements, in which one or the other ability may predominate, but none may be in conflict with the rest.”1 In a previous article on Strategic leadership I described the strategic environment as volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA). Additionally, that writing introduced the concept of strategic competency.2 This article will discuss the most important essential skill for Strategic Leaders: critical thinking. It is hard to imagine a Strategic leader today who does not think critically or at least uses the concept in making decisions. Critical thinking helps the strategic leader master the challenges of the strategic environment. It helps one understand how to bring stability to a volatile world. Critical thinking leads to more certainty and confidence in an uncertain future. This skill helps simplify complex scenarios and brings clarity to the ambiguous lens. Critical thinking is the kind of mental attitude required for success in the strategic environment. In essence, critical thinking is about learning how to think and how to judge and improve the quality of thinking—yours and others. Lest you feel you are already a great critical thinker, consider this, in a recent study supported by the Kellogg Foundation, only four percent of the U.S. organizational
  • Recent Work in Relevant Logic

    Recent Work in Relevant Logic

    Recent Work in Relevant Logic Mark Jago Forthcoming in Analysis. Draft of April 2013. 1 Introduction Relevant logics are a group of logics which attempt to block irrelevant conclusions being drawn from a set of premises. The following inferences are all valid in classical logic, where A and B are any sentences whatsoever: • from A, one may infer B → A, B → B and B ∨ ¬B; • from ¬A, one may infer A → B; and • from A ∧ ¬A, one may infer B. But if A and B are utterly irrelevant to one another, many feel reluctant to call these inferences acceptable. Similarly for the validity of the corresponding material implications, often called ‘paradoxes’ of material implication. Relevant logic can be seen as the attempt to avoid these ‘paradoxes’. Relevant logic has a long history. Key early works include Anderson and Belnap 1962; 1963; 1975, and many important results appear in Routley et al. 1982. Those looking for a short introduction to relevant logics might look at Mares 2012 or Priest 2008. For a more detailed but still accessible introduction, there’s Dunn and Restall 2002; Mares 2004b; Priest 2008 and Read 1988. The aim of this article is to survey some of the most important work in the eld in the past ten years, in a way that I hope will be of interest to a philosophical audience. Much of this recent work has been of a formal nature. I will try to outline these technical developments, and convey something of their importance, with the minimum of technical jargon. A good deal of this recent technical work concerns how quantiers should work in relevant logic.
  • Computational Advantages of Relevance Reasoning in Bayesian Belief Networks

    Computational Advantages of Relevance Reasoning in Bayesian Belief Networks

    342 Computational Advantages of Relevance Reasoning in Bayesian Belief Networks Yan Lin Marek J. Druzdzel University of Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh Intelligent Systems Program Department of Information Science Pittsburgh, PA 1.5260 and Intelligent Systems Program [email protected] Pittsburgh, PA 15260 marek@sis. pitt. edu Abstract reasoning, shown to be NP-hard both for exact infer­ ence [Cooper, 1990] and for approximate [Dagurn. and This paper introduces a computational Luby, 1993] inference. framework for reasoning in Bayesian belief The critical factor in exact inference schemes is the networks that derives significant advantages topology of the underlying graph and, more specifi­ from focused inference and relevance reason­ cally, its connectivity. The complexity of approximate ing. This framework is based on d-separation schemes may, in addition, depend on factors like the and other simple and computationally effi­ a-priori likelihood of the observed evidenee or asymme­ cient techniques for pruning irrelevant parts tries in probability distributions. There are a number of a network. Our main contribution is a of ingeniously efficient algorithms that allow for fast technique that we call relevance-based decom­ belief updating in moderately sized models.2 Still, position. Relevance-based decomposition ap­ eaeh of them is subject to the growth in complexity proaches belief updating in large networks that is generally exponential in the size of the model. by focusing on their parts and decompos­ Given the promise of the decision-theoretic approach ing them into partially overlapping subnet­ and an increasing number of its practical applications, works. This makes reasoning in some in­ it is important to develop schemes that will reduce the tractable networks possible and, in addition, computational complexity of inference.
  • John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA Jburgess@Princeton.Edu

    John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected]

    John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected] LOGIC & PHILOSOPHICAL METHODOLOGY Introduction For present purposes “logic” will be understood to mean the subject whose development is described in Kneale & Kneale [1961] and of which a concise history is given in Scholz [1961]. As the terminological discussion at the beginning of the latter reference makes clear, this subject has at different times been known by different names, “analytics” and “organon” and “dialectic”, while inversely the name “logic” has at different times been applied much more broadly and loosely than it will be here. At certain times and in certain places — perhaps especially in Germany from the days of Kant through the days of Hegel — the label has come to be used so very broadly and loosely as to threaten to take in nearly the whole of metaphysics and epistemology. Logic in our sense has often been distinguished from “logic” in other, sometimes unmanageably broad and loose, senses by adding the adjectives “formal” or “deductive”. The scope of the art and science of logic, once one gets beyond elementary logic of the kind covered in introductory textbooks, is indicated by two other standard references, the Handbooks of mathematical and philosophical logic, Barwise [1977] and Gabbay & Guenthner [1983-89], though the latter includes also parts that are identified as applications of logic rather than logic proper. The term “philosophical logic” as currently used, for instance, in the Journal of Philosophical Logic, is a near-synonym for “nonclassical logic”. There is an older use of the term as a near-synonym for “philosophy of language”.
  • A Collaborative Filtering Approach for Recommending OLAP Sessions Julien Aligon, Enrico Gallinucci, Matteo Golfarelli, Patrick Marcel, Stefano Rizzi

    A Collaborative Filtering Approach for Recommending OLAP Sessions Julien Aligon, Enrico Gallinucci, Matteo Golfarelli, Patrick Marcel, Stefano Rizzi

    A collaborative filtering approach for recommending OLAP sessions Julien Aligon, Enrico Gallinucci, Matteo Golfarelli, Patrick Marcel, Stefano Rizzi To cite this version: Julien Aligon, Enrico Gallinucci, Matteo Golfarelli, Patrick Marcel, Stefano Rizzi. A collaborative filtering approach for recommending OLAP sessions. Decision Support Systems, Elsevier, 2015, pp.20. 10.1016/j.dss.2014.11.003. hal-01170959 HAL Id: hal-01170959 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01170959 Submitted on 2 Jul 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. A Collaborative Filtering Approach for Recommending OLAP Sessions Julien Aligon a, Enrico Gallinucci b, Matteo Golfarelli b, Patrick Marcel a;∗, Stefano Rizzi b aLaboratoire d'Informatique { Universit´eFran¸coisRabelais Tours, France bDISI, University of Bologna, Italy Abstract While OLAP has a key role in supporting effective exploration of multidimensional cubes, the huge number of aggregations and selections that can be operated on data may make the user experience disorientating. To address this issue, in the paper we propose a recommendation approach stemming from collaborative filter- ing. We claim that the whole sequence of queries belonging to an OLAP session is valuable because it gives the user a compound and synergic view of data; for this reason, our goal is not to recommend single OLAP queries but OLAP sessions.
  • Respecting Relevance in Belief Change

    Respecting Relevance in Belief Change

    David C. Makinson and George Kourousias Respecting relevance in belief change Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Makinson, David C. and Kourousias, George (2006) Respecting relevance in belief change. Análisis Filosófico, 26 (1). pp. 53-61. ISSN 0326-1301 © 2006 Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/56812/ Available in LSE Research Online: May 2014 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. RESPECTING RELEVANCE IN BELIEF CHANGE DAVID MAKINSON AND GEORGE KOUROUSIAS Abstract. In this paper dedicated to Carlos Alchourr´on, we review an issue that emerged only after his death in 1996, but would have been of great interest to him: To what extent do the formal operations of AGM belief change respect criteria of relevance? A natural (but also debateable) criterion was proposed in 1999 by Rohit Parikh, who observed that the AGM model does not always respect it.
  • Ambiguity in Argument Jan Albert Van Laar*

    Ambiguity in Argument Jan Albert Van Laar*

    Argument and Computation Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2010, 125–146 Ambiguity in argument Jan Albert van Laar* Department of Theoretical Philosophy, University of Groningen, Groningen 9712 GL, The Netherlands (Received 8 September 2009; final version received 11 February 2010) The use of ambiguous expressions in argumentative dialogues can lead to misunderstanding and equivocation. Such ambiguities are here called active ambiguities. However, even a normative model of persuasion dialogue ought not to ban active ambiguities altogether, one reason being that it is not always possible to determine beforehand which expressions will prove to be actively ambiguous. Thus, it is proposed that argumentative norms should enable each participant to put forward ambiguity criticisms as well as self-critical ambiguity corrections, inducing them to improve their language if necessary. In order to discourage them from nitpicking and from arriving at excessively high levels of precision, the parties are also provided with devices with which to examine whether the ambiguity corrections or ambiguity criticisms have been appropriate. A formal dialectical system is proposed, in the Hamblin style, that satisfies these and some other philosophical desiderata. Keywords: active ambiguity; argument; critical discussion; equivocation; persuasion dialogue; pseudo-agreement; pseudo-disagreement 1. Introduction Argumentative types of dialogue can be hampered by expressions that are ambiguous or equivocal. A participant can show dissatisfaction with such ambiguities by disambiguating the formulations he has used or by inciting the other side to improve upon their formulations. A typical example can be found in the case where W.B. had been arrested both for drink and driving and for driving under suspension.
  • Htemships Offer Popular Afternative Creased to 15 Counts in 2008 from Focused on Removing the Veazie 11 in 2007

    Htemships Offer Popular Afternative Creased to 15 Counts in 2008 from Focused on Removing the Veazie 11 in 2007

    ALUMNI NEWS \ D1WALI FESTIVAL Campus Kulik '76 crime stats counts published river fish By MICHAEL BROPHY By EMMA CREEDEN ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR CONTRIBUTING WRITER Earlier mis month, College Se- The Penobscot River Restora- curity submitted the College's tion Project is an assertive, ag- 2008 Campus Crime Statistics to gressive, public-private attempt to the U.S. Department of Educa- restore native fish populations in tion and posted the information the Penobscot River. on the Department of Security Over 150 years of land clear- web page. ing, sewage waste and industrial In accordance with federal law, pollution by pulp, paper, textile the report must list the counts for and lumber mills turned the river an array of potential campus into what Brandon Kulik '76 crimes, ranging from burglary all refers to as a "biological desert." the way to murder and arson for The Penobscot River contin- the calendar year of 2008. The ued to succumb to extreme statistics from 2008 are listed amounts of sludge and contami- next to the same statistics for the ¦ nation until the passage of the — CHRIS KASPRA1VTHE CWBY ECHO calendar years 2006 and 2007. Clean Water Act in 1972 and a se- Students danced for a crowd in Foss on Friday to celebrate the holiday of lights. The event featured traditional Indian song and dance. The statistic that stands out ries of hydro quality reforms in most in the report is the signifi- the 1980s. cant increase in larceny, which Today, the Penobscot River increased to 86 counts in 2008 Restoration Project is issuing a from 53 in 2007.
  • The Relevance of the Wrong Kind of Reasons

    The Relevance of the Wrong Kind of Reasons

    THE RELEVANCE OF THE WRONG KIND OF REASONS ULRIKE HEUER UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS “Let us weigh the gain and the loss involved in wagering that God exists. Let us estimate these two probabilities; if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He does exist.” (Blaise Pascal, Pensées) That you win doesn’t seem the right kind of reason for believing that God exists, even if Pascal is right that you stand to lose nothing, but you may gain a lot.1 It seems to be a reason of the wrong kind. There is currently a wide-ranging philosophical discussion of two kinds of reasons for attitudes such as belief, which are sometimes called the right and wrong kinds of reasons for those attitudes. The question is what the distinction shows about the nature of the attitudes, and about reasons and normativity in general. The distinction is deemed to apply to reasons for different kinds of attitudes such as beliefs and intentions, as well as so-called pro- attitudes, e.g. admiration or desire. Wlodek Rabinowicz’s and Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen’s paper “The Strike of the Demon” (2004) forged the shape and structure of the current discussion. Their focus is on the fitting-attitude theory of value (henceforth: FA theory), a version of which is (as they see it) the so-called ‘buck-passing account’2, the view that the value of an object consists in the fact that it has properties other than that of being valuable which provide reasons for pro-attitudes.
  • THE LOOICAL ATOMISM J. D. MACKENZIE Date Submitted Thesis

    THE LOOICAL ATOMISM J. D. MACKENZIE Date Submitted Thesis

    THE LOOICAL ATOMISM OF F. P. RAMSEY J. D. MACKENZIE Date submitted Thesis submitted for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Philosophy University of New South Wales (i) SYNOPSIS The first Chapter sets Ramsey in histor:iealperspective as a Logical Atomist. Chapter Two is concerned with the impasse in which Russell found himself ,d.th general propositions, Wittgenstein's putative solution in terms of his Doctrine of Showing, and Ramsey's "Wittgensteinian" solution, which is not satisfactory. An attempt is then ma.de to describe a Ramseian solution on the basis of what he says about the Axiom of Infi- nity, and to criticize this solution. In Chapter Three Ramsay's objections to the Pl4 definition of identity are considered, and consequences of his rejection of that definition for the Theory of Classes and the Axiom of Choice are drawn. In Chapter Four, Ramsey•s modifications to Russell's Theory of Types are discussed. His division of the Paradoxes into two groups is defended, but his redefinition of 'predicative' is rejected. Chapter Five deals with Ra.msey's analysis of propositional attitudes and negative propositions, and Chapter Six considers the dispute between Russell and Ramsey over the nature and status of universals. In Chapter Seven, the conclusions are summarized, and Ramsay's contribution to Logical Atom.ism are assessed. His main fail­ ing is found to be his lack of understanding of impossibility, especially with regard to the concept of infinity. (ii) PREFACE The thesis is divided into chapters, which are in turn divided into sections.
  • Escaping Eden

    Escaping Eden

    Escaping Eden Chapter 1 I wake up screaming. Where am I? What’s going on? Why do I feel so cold? It’s dark. I look around, blinking sleep from my eyes. I notice a window somewhere in the back of the room. It’s open and moonlight shines through, casting a square beam of light across the floor. A breeze drifts in, and white curtains float like pale ghosts in the darkness. In the narrow light of the moon, I see that the carpet is burgundy. I also see the outlines of furniture. My head vaguely aching, I look at the shadows scattered messily across the room. I feel like sweeping them up to make room for light. I shake off the urge. Stop being delusional. There’s a funny smell in the air, ​ ​ like a mixture of old home mustiness and laboratory sterilization. I realize that I’m lying on the floor. Why am I not on the bed? ​ The last thing I remember is pain. Maybe that’s why I woke up screaming. The ​ ​ pain was intense. The pain was… cold. I decide to swallow my fear. It tastes terrible. ​ I stand up and my neck aches. As I rub my hand across it, my bones crack like I haven’t moved in a long time. I whisper to myself. “As Grandpa always said…” My train of thought rolls off into the distance. Where was I going with this? Who is “Grandpa”? I put my hand on my sweaty ​ forehead. I must be tired. I look for a light switch by approaching the walls and groping ​ ​ around.