DOCSLIB.ORG

Fuzzy Logic Outline Fuzzy Logic Is a Set of Mathematical Principles for Knowledge Representation Based on the Membership Part 1 Function

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fuzzy Logic Outline Fuzzy Logic Is a Set of Mathematical Principles for Knowledge Representation Based on the Membership Part 1 Function Fuzzy Logic Outline Fuzzy logic is a set of mathematical principles for knowledge representation based on the membership Part 1 function. Introduction, or what is fuzzy thinking? Andrew Kusiak Intelligent Systems Laboratory Fuzzy sets Unlike two-valued Boolean logic, fuzzy logic is multi-valued. It deals with the degree of 2139 Seamans Center Linguistic variables and hedges The University of Iowa membership and the degree of truth. Fuzzy logic Iowa City, Iowa 52242 - 1527 Operations of fuzzy sets uses the continuum of logical values between 0 [email protected] Fuzzy rules (completely false) and 1 (completely true). Instead http://www.icaen.uiowa.edu/~ankusiak Summary of just black and white, it employs the spectrum of Tel: 319 - 335 5934 Fax: 319 - 335 5669 colours, accepting that things can be partly true and partly false at the same time. Based on material provided by Professor Michael Negnevitsky Fuzzy sets The classical example in fuzzy sets is tall men. Range of logical values in Boolean and fuzzy logic The elements of the fuzzy set “tall men” are all men, but their degrees of membership depend on their height. The concept of a set is fundamental to mathematics. Degree of Membership Name Height, cm Crisp Fuzzy Chris 208 1 1.00 0 0110 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.81 1 A natural language expresses sets. For example, a Mark 205 1 1.00 (a) Boolean Logic. (b) Multi-valued Logic. car indicates a set of cars. When we say a car, we John 198 1 0.98 Tom 181 1 0.82 mean one out of the set of cars. David 179 0 0.78 Mike 172 0 0.24 Bob 167 0 0.15 Steven 158 0 0.06 Bill 155 0 0.01 Peter 152 0 0.00 Crisp and fuzzy sets of “tall men” A fuzzy set is a set with fuzzy boundaries. Degree of Crisp Sets Membership Let X be the universe of discourse and its elements 1.0 The x-axis represents the universe of discourse − the 0.8 range of all possible values applicable to the be denoted as x. In the classical set theory, crisp Tall Men 0.6 variable of choice. In our case, the variable is the set A of X is defined as function fA(x) called the 0.4 man height. According to this representation, the characteristic function of A 0.2 0.0 universe of men’s heights consists of all tall men. ⎧1, if x∈ A 150160 170 180 190 200 210 f (x) = Height, cm fA(x): X → {0, 1}, where A ⎨ Degree of 0,if x∉ A Membership Fuzzy Sets ⎩ 1.0 The y-axis represents the membership value of the 0.8 fuzzy set. In our case, the fuzzy set of “tall men” This set maps universe X to a set of two elements. 0.6 maps height values into corresponding membership For any element x of universe X, characteristic 0.4 function f (x) is equal to 1 if x is an element of set 0.2 values. A 0.0 A, and is equal to 0 if x is not an element of A. 150160 170 180 190 200 210 Height, cm Crisp and fuzzy sets of short, average, and tall men In the fuzzy theory, fuzzy set A of universe X is Representation of crisp and fuzzy subsets Degree of Crisp Sets defined by function μA(x) called the membership Membership 1.0 μ (x) function of set A X Fuzzy Subset A 0.8 Short Average ShortTall Tall Men 0.6 1 μA(x): X → [0, 1], where μA(x) = 1 if x is totally in A; 0.4 μA(x) = 0 if x is not in A; 0.2 0 < μ (x) < 1 if x is partly in A. 0.0 A 150160 170 180 190 200 210 Height, cm 0 This set allows a continuum of possible choices. Degree of Fuzzy Sets x Membership Crisp Subset A Fuzziness Fuzziness For any element x of universe X, membership 1.0 function μ (x) equals the degree to which x is an 0.8 Typical functions that can be used to represent a fuzzy A Short Average Tall 0.6 set are sigmoid, gaussian and pi. However, these element of set A. This degree, a value between 0 0.4 and 1, represents the degree of membership, also 0.2 Tall functions increase the computation time. Therefore, called membership value, of element x in set A. 0.0 most applications use linear fit functions. 150160 170 180 190 200 210 Linguistic variables and hedges The range of possible values of a linguistic variable In fuzzy expert systems, linguistic variables are used represents the universe of discourse of that variable. in fuzzy rules. For example: For example, the universe of discourse of the The fuzzy set theory is rooted in linguistic IF wind is strong linguistic variable speed might be the range between variables. THEN sailing is good 0 and 220 km/h and may include such fuzzy subsets as very slow, slow, medium, fast, and very fast. IF project_duration is long A linguistic variable carries with it the concept of A linguistic variable is a fuzzy variable. For THEN completion_risk is high example, the statement “John is tall” implies that fuzzy set qualifiers, called hedges. Hedges are terms that modify the shape of fuzzy the linguistic variable John takes the linguistic IF speed is slow sets. They include adverbs such as very, somewhat, value tall. THEN stopping_distance is short quite, more or less and slightly. Representation of hedges in fuzzy logic (2/2) Fuzzy sets with the hedge very Representation of hedges in fuzzy logic (1/2) Mathematical Hedge Graphical Representation Mathematical Degree of Expression Hedge Graphical Representation Membership Expression 1.3 A little [μ ( x )] 1.0 A 4 Short ShortTall Very very [μA ( x )] 0.8 1.7 0.6 Average Slightly [μA ( x )] More or less μA ( x ) 0.4 2 Very Short VeryVery Tall Tall Very [μ ( x )] 0.2 Tall A Somewhat μA ( x ) 0.0 3 150160 170 180 190 200 210 Extremely [μA ( x )] 2 2 [μA ( x )] Height, cm if 0 ≤ μ ≤ 0.5 Indeed A 2 Example, for Alex is tall, μ = .86, Alex is very tall, μ = μ2 =.74, 1 − 2 [1 − μA ( x )] Alex is very very tall, μ = μ4 =.55 if 0.5 < μA ≤ 1 Cantor’s sets Operations of fuzzy sets Complement Not A Crisp Sets: Who does not belong to the set? B Fuzzy Sets: How much do elements not belong to th The classical set theory developed in the late 19 A AA the set? century by Georg Cantor describes interactions The complement of a set is an opposite of this set. between crisp sets. For example, if we have the set of tall men, its Complement Containment complement is the set of NOT tall men. When we These interactions are called operations. remove the tall men set from the universe of discourse, we obtain the complement. If A is the fuzzy set, its complement ¬A can be found as ABB AA B follows: Not A μ¬A(x) = 1 −μA(x) A Intersection Union Intersection Containment Union Crisp Sets: Which element belongs to both sets? Crisp Sets: Which sets belong to which other sets? Crisp Sets: Which element belongs to either set? Fuzzy Sets: To what degree the element is in both sets? Fuzzy Sets: How much of the element is in either set? Fuzzy Sets: Which sets belong to other sets? In classical set theory, an intersection between two sets Similar to a Chinese box, a set can contain other The union of two crisp sets consists of every element contains the elements shared by these sets. For that falls into either set. For example, the union of sets. The smaller set is called the subset. For example, the intersection of the set of tall men and the example, the set of tall men contains all tall men; tall men and fat men contains all men who are tall set of fat men is the area where these sets overlap. In OR fat. In fuzzy sets, the union is the reverse of the very tall men is a subset of tall men. However, the fuzzy sets, an element may partly belong to both sets tall men set is just a subset of the set of men. In intersection. That is, the union is the largest with different memberships. A fuzzy intersection is the membership value of the element in either set. The crisp sets, all elements of a subset entirely belong to lower membership in both sets of each element. The a larger set. In fuzzy sets, however, each element fuzzy operation for forming the union of two fuzzy fuzzy intersection of two fuzzy sets A and B on sets A and B on universe X can be given as: can belong less to the subset than to the larger set. universe of discourse X: Elements of the fuzzy subset have smaller μA∪B(x) = max [μA(x), μB(x)] = μA(x) ∪μB(x), B μA∩B(x) = min [μA(x), μB(x)] = μA(x) ∩μB(x), memberships in it than in the larger set. A B AA where x∈X A B where x∈X Operations of fuzzy sets Fuzzy set operators Fuzzy rules What is a fuzzy rule? μ ( x ) μ ( x ) Cantor’s operators B In 1973, Lotfi Zadeh published his second most A fuzzy rule can be defined as a conditional 1 1 A A influential paper.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Computing Degrees of Subsethood and Similarity for Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets: Fast Algorithms Hung T
    University of Texas at El Paso DigitalCommons@UTEP Departmental Technical Reports (CS) Department of Computer Science 8-1-2008 Computing Degrees of Subsethood and Similarity for Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets: Fast Algorithms Hung T. Nguyen Vladik Kreinovich University of Texas at El Paso, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cs_techrep Part of the Computer Engineering Commons Comments: Technical Report: UTEP-CS-08-27a Published in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Technologies InTech'08, Samui, Thailand, October 7-9, 2008, pp. 47-55. Recommended Citation Nguyen, Hung T. and Kreinovich, Vladik, "Computing Degrees of Subsethood and Similarity for Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets: Fast Algorithms" (2008). Departmental Technical Reports (CS). Paper 94. http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cs_techrep/94 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Computer Science at DigitalCommons@UTEP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Departmental Technical Reports (CS) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UTEP. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Computing Degrees of Subsethood and Similarity for Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets: Fast Algorithms Hung T. Nguyen Vladik Kreinovich Department of Mathematical Sciences Department of Computer Science New Mexico State University University of Texas at El Paso Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA El Paso, TX 79968, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Subsethood A ⊆ B and set equality A = B are Thus, for two fuzzy sets A and B, it is reasonable to define among the basic notions of set theory. For traditional (“crisp”) degree of subsethood and degree of similarity.
    [Show full text]
  • A Simple Logic for Comparisons and Vagueness
    THEODORE J. EVERETT A SIMPLE LOGIC FOR COMPARISONS AND VAGUENESS ABSTRACT. I provide an intuitive, semantic account of a new logic for comparisons (CL), in which atomic statements are assigned both a classical truth-value and a “how much” value or extension in the range [0, 1]. The truth-value of each comparison is determined by the extensions of its component sentences; the truth-value of each atomic depends on whether its extension matches a separate standard for its predicate; everything else is computed classically. CL is less radical than Casari’s comparative logics, in that it does not allow for the formation of comparative statements out of truth-functional molecules. I argue that CL provides a better analysis of comparisons and predicate vagueness than classical logic, fuzzy logic or supervaluation theory. CL provides a model for descriptions of the world in terms of comparisons only. The sorites paradox can be solved by the elimination of atomic sentences. In his recent book on vagueness, Timothy Williamson (1994) attacks accounts of vagueness arising from either fuzzy logic or supervaluation theory, both of which have well-known problems, stemming in part from their denial of classical bivalence. He then gives his own, epistemic ac- count of vagueness, according to which the vagueness of a predicate is fundamentally a matter of our not knowing whether or not it applies in every case. My main purpose in this paper is not to criticize William- son’s positive view, but to provide an alternative, non-epistemic account of predicate vagueness, based on a very simple logic for comparisons (CL), which preserves bivalence.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Informal Logic Have Anything to Learn from Fuzzy Logic?
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM Does informal logic have anything to learn from fuzzy logic? John Woods University of British Columbia Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Woods, John, "Does informal logic have anything to learn from fuzzy logic?" (1999). OSSA Conference Archive. 62. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/62 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Title: Does informal logic have anything to learn from fuzzy logic? Author: John Woods Response to this paper by: Rolf George (c)2000 John Woods 1. Motivation Since antiquity, philosophers have been challenged by the apparent vagueness of everyday thought and experience. How, these philosophers have wanted to know, are the things we say and think compatible with logical laws such as Excluded Middle?1 A kindred attraction has been the question of how truth presents itself — relatively and in degrees? in approximations? in resemblances, or in bits and pieces? F.H. Bradley is a celebrated (or as the case may be, excoriated) champion of the degrees view of truth. There are, one may say, two main views of error, the absolute and relative. According to the former view there are perfect truths, and on the other side there are sheer errors..
    [Show full text]
  • Intransitivity and Vagueness
    Intransitivity and Vagueness Joseph Y. Halpern∗ Cornell University Computer Science Department Ithaca, NY 14853 [email protected] http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/halpern Abstract preferences. Moreover, it is this intuition that forms the ba- sis of the partitional model for knowledge used in game the- There are many examples in the literature that suggest that indistinguishability is intransitive, despite the fact that the in- ory (see, e.g., [Aumann 1976]) and in the distributed sys- distinguishability relation is typically taken to be an equiv- tems community [Fagin, Halpern, Moses, and Vardi 1995]. alence relation (and thus transitive). It is shown that if the On the other hand, besides the obvious experimental obser- uncertainty perception and the question of when an agent vations, there have been arguments going back to at least reports that two things are indistinguishable are both care- Poincare´ [1902] that the physical world is not transitive in fully modeled, the problems disappear, and indistinguishabil- this sense. In this paper, I try to reconcile our intuitions ity can indeed be taken to be an equivalence relation. More- about indistinguishability with the experimental observa- over, this model also suggests a logic of vagueness that seems tions, in a way that seems (at least to me) both intuitively to solve many of the problems related to vagueness discussed appealing and psychologically plausible. I then go on to ap- in the philosophical literature. In particular, it is shown here ply the ideas developed to the problem of vagueness. how the logic can handle the Sorites Paradox. To understand the vagueness problem, consider the well- n+1 1 Introduction known Sorites Paradox: If grains of sand make a heap, then so do n.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Relationship Between Fuzzy Autoepistemic Logic and Fuzzy Modal Logics of Belief
    JID:FSS AID:6759 /FLA [m3SC+; v1.204; Prn:31/03/2015; 9:42] P.1(1-26) Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Fuzzy Sets and Systems ••• (••••) •••–••• www.elsevier.com/locate/fss On the relationship between fuzzy autoepistemic logic and fuzzy modal logics of belief ∗ Marjon Blondeel d, ,1, Tommaso Flaminio a,2, Steven Schockaert b, Lluís Godo c,3, Martine De Cock d,e a Università dell’Insubria, Department of Theorical and Applied Science, Via Mazzini 5, 21100 Varese, Italy b Cardiff University, School of Computer Science and Informatics, 5The Parade, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK c Artficial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA) – CSIC, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain d Ghent University, Department of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Krijgslaan 281 (S9), 9000 Gent, Belgium e University of Washington Tacoma – Center for Web and Data Science, 1900 Commerce Street, Tacoma, WA 98402-3100, USA Received 12 February 2014; received in revised form 30 September 2014; accepted 26 February 2015 Abstract Autoepistemic logic is an important formalism for nonmonotonic reasoning originally intended to model an ideal rational agent reflecting upon his own beliefs. Fuzzy autoepistemic logic is a generalization of autoepistemic logic that allows to represent an agent’s rational beliefs on gradable propositions. It has recently been shown that, in the same way as autoepistemic logic generalizes answer set programming, fuzzy autoepistemic logic generalizes fuzzy answer set programming as well. Besides being related to answer set programming, autoepistemic logic is also closely related to several modal logics. To investigate whether a similar relationship holds in a fuzzy logical setting, we firstly generalize the main modal logics for belief to the setting of finitely-valued c Łukasiewicz logic with truth constants Łk, and secondly we relate them with fuzzy autoepistemic logics.
    [Show full text]
  • A Class of Fuzzy Theories*
    JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS AND APPLICATIONS 85, 409-451 (1982) A Class of Fuzzy Theories* ERNEST G. MANES Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003 Submitted by L. Zadeh Contenfs. 0. Introduction. 1. Fuzzy theories. 2. Equality and degree of membership. 3. Distributions as operations. 4. Homomorphisms. 5. Independent joint distributions. 6. The logic of propositions. 7. Superposition. 8. The distributional conditional. 9. Conclusions. References. 0. INTR~DUCTTON At the level of syntax, a flowchart scheme [25, Chap. 41 decomposes into atomic pieces put together by the operations of structured programming [ 11. Our definition of “fuzzy theory” is motivated solely by providing the minimal machinery to interpret loop-free schemes in a fuzzy way. Indeed, a fuzzy theory T = (T, e, (-)“) is defined in Section 1 by the data (A, B, C). For each set X there is given a new set TX of “distributions on X” or “vague specifications (A) of elements of X.” For each set X there is given a distinguished function e, : X-+ TX, “a crisp 03) specification is a special case of a vague one.” For each “fuzzy function” a: X-, TY there is given a distinguished “extension” (Cl a#: TX-+ TY. The data are all subject to three axioms. This definition is motivated by the flowchart scheme l.E. Some fundamental examples are crisp set theory: TX = X, CD) fuzzy set theory: TX = [0, llx, (E) * The research reported in this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foun- dation under Grant MCS76-84477. 409 0022-247X/82/020409-43$02.0010 Copyright 0 1982 by Academic Press, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequence and Degrees of Truth in Many-Valued Logic
    Consequence and degrees of truth in many-valued logic Josep Maria Font Published as Chapter 6 (pp. 117–142) of: Peter Hájek on Mathematical Fuzzy Logic (F. Montagna, ed.) vol. 6 of Outstanding Contributions to Logic, Springer-Verlag, 2015 Abstract I argue that the definition of a logic by preservation of all degrees of truth is a better rendering of Bolzano’s idea of consequence as truth- preserving when “truth comes in degrees”, as is often said in many-valued contexts, than the usual scheme that preserves only one truth value. I review some results recently obtained in the investigation of this proposal by applying techniques of abstract algebraic logic in the framework of Łukasiewicz logics and in the broader framework of substructural logics, that is, logics defined by varieties of (commutative and integral) residuated lattices. I also review some scattered, early results, which have appeared since the 1970’s, and make some proposals for further research. Keywords: many-valued logic, mathematical fuzzy logic, truth val- ues, truth degrees, logics preserving degrees of truth, residuated lattices, substructural logics, abstract algebraic logic, Leibniz hierarchy, Frege hierarchy. Contents 6.1 Introduction .............................2 6.2 Some motivation and some history ...............3 6.3 The Łukasiewicz case ........................8 6.4 Widening the scope: fuzzy and substructural logics ....9 6.5 Abstract algebraic logic classification ............. 12 6.6 The Deduction Theorem ..................... 16 6.7 Axiomatizations ........................... 18 6.7.1 In the Gentzen style . 18 6.7.2 In the Hilbert style . 19 6.8 Conclusions .............................. 21 References .................................. 23 1 6.1 Introduction Let me begin by calling your attention to one of the main points made by Petr Hájek in the introductory, vindicating section of his influential book [34] (the italics are his): «Logic studies the notion(s) of consequence.
    [Show full text]
  • A Unifying Field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic. Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Probability and Statistics
    FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (fourth edition) NL(A1 A2) = ( T1 ({1}T2) T2 ({1}T1) T1T2 ({1}T1) ({1}T2), I1 ({1}I2) I2 ({1}I1) I1 I2 ({1}I1) ({1} I2), F1 ({1}F2) F2 ({1} F1) F1 F2 ({1}F1) ({1}F2) ). NL(A1 A2) = ( {1}T1T1T2, {1}I1I1I2, {1}F1F1F2 ). NL(A1 A2) = ( ({1}T1T1T2) ({1}T2T1T2), ({1} I1 I1 I2) ({1}I2 I1 I2), ({1}F1F1 F2) ({1}F2F1 F2) ). ISBN 978-1-59973-080-6 American Research Press Rehoboth 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005 FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (fourth edition) NL(A1 A2) = ( T1 ({1}T2) T2 ({1}T1) T1T2 ({1}T1) ({1}T2), I1 ({1}I2) I2 ({1}I1) I1 I2 ({1}I1) ({1} I2), F1 ({1}F2) F2 ({1} F1) F1 F2 ({1}F1) ({1}F2) ). NL(A1 A2) = ( {1}T1T1T2, {1}I1I1I2, {1}F1F1F2 ). NL(A1 A2) = ( ({1}T1T1T2) ({1}T2T1T2), ({1} I1 I1 I2) ({1}I2 I1 I2), ({1}F1F1 F2) ({1}F2F1 F2) ). ISBN 978-1-59973-080-6 American Research Press Rehoboth 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005 1 Contents: Preface by C. Le: 3 0. Introduction: 9 1. Neutrosophy - a new branch of philosophy: 15 2. Neutrosophic Logic - a unifying field in logics: 90 3. Neutrosophic Set - a unifying field in sets: 125 4. Neutrosophic Probability - a generalization of classical and imprecise probabilities - and Neutrosophic Statistics: 129 5. Addenda: Definitions derived from Neutrosophics: 133 2 Preface to Neutrosophy and Neutrosophic Logic by C.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Basic Concepts of Fuzzy Set Theory A.I Fuzzy Sets ILA{X): X
    Appendix A Basic Concepts of Fuzzy Set Theory This appendix gives the definitions of the concepts of fuzzy set theory, which are used in this book. For a comprehensive treatment of fuzzy set theory, see, for instance, (Zimmermann, 1996; Klir and Yuan, 1995). A.I Fuzzy Sets Definition A.I (fuzzy set) A fuzzy set A on universe (domain) X is defined by the membership function ILA{X) which is a mapping from the universe X into the unit interval: ILA{X): X -+ [0,1]. (A.l) F{X) denotes the set of all fuzzy sets on X. Fuzzy set theory allows for a partial membership of an element in a set. If the value of the membership function, called the membership degree (grade), equals one, x belongs completely to the fuzzy set. If it equals zero, x does not belong to the set. If the membership degree is between 0 and 1, x is a partial member of the fuzzy set. In the fuzzy set literature, the term crisp is often used to denote nonfuzzy quantities, e.g., a crisp number, a crisp set, etc. A.2 Membership Functions In a discrete set X = {Xi I i = 1,2, ... ,n}, a fuzzy set A may be defined by a list of ordered pairs: membership degree/set element: (A.2) or in the form of two related vectors: In continuous domains, fuzzy sets are defined analytically by their membership func­ tions. In this book, the following forms of membership functions are used: 228 FUZZY MODELING FOR CONTROL Trapezoidal membership function: x-a d-X) /-L(x;a,b,c,d)=max ( O,min(b_a,l'd_c) , (A4) where a, b, c and d are coordinates of the trapezoid apexes.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading T. S. Eliot Reading Spinoza
    READING T. S. ELIOT READING SPINOZA A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Yoshiaki Mihara January 2013 © 2013 Yoshiaki Mihara READING T. S. ELIOT READING SPINOZA Yoshiaki Mihara, Ph. D. Cornell University 2013 “[The ordinary man] falls in love, or reads Spinoza, and these two experiences have nothing to do with each other” – a good reader of T. S. Eliot’s criticism probably knows this famous passage; a good researcher on Eliot’s apprenticeship in philosophy perhaps knows that he did actually read Spinoza; and yet, in the current Eliot studies, reading Eliot and reading Spinoza seem to have nothing to do with each other. In this dissertation, I attempt to reconstruct Eliot’s reading of Spinoza as faithfully and comprehensively as possible, by closely analyzing the marginalia in Eliot’s copy of Spinoza’s Opera, housed in the Archive Centre of King’s College, Cambridge. At the same time, the Spinozist context for Eliot’s apprenticeship at Harvard and Oxford (with the intermission of “a romantic year” in Paris) is also to be presented, which is, in fact, a glaring absence in the philosophical branch of Eliot studies. In addition to these positivistic contributions, I also take a theoretical approach so as to demonstrate how illuminative Eliot’s reading of Spinoza can be for understanding the characteristic style (or “ethology”) of Eliot’s reading in general (i.e., Theory), by way of extensively analyzing the unpublished as well as published materials of Eliot’s “academic philosophizing” that culminated in his doctoral dissertation on F.
    [Show full text]
  • Modality and Factivity: One Perspective on the Meaning of the English Modal Auxiliaries
    MODALITY AND FACTIVITY: ONE PERSPECTIVE ON THE MEANING OF THE ENGLISH MODAL AUXILIARIES by NICOLA M,BREWER Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD The University of Leeds Department of Linguistics and Phonetics December 1987 ii ABSTRACT This study concentrates on modality as expressed by the set of modal auxiliaries and seeks to establish that these verbs share semantic as well as syntactic properties by identifying a single core meaning which they share. The relationship between modality and factivity is examined with the aim of gaining an insight into the former, more complex concept. When viewed from this perspective, the defining characteristic of all the modal auxiliary verbs in almost all of their uses is found to be nonfactivity. The meanings expressed by this set of verbs are classified according to a framework derived from modal logic consisting of three basic types of modality each of which relates to a different set of laws or principles; the relative factivity associated with the modal auxiliaries is seen to vary with the nature of modality as defined and classified by this framework. Within each of the three types of modality, a semantic scale is identified and modality is described as a gradable concept for which scalar analysis is appropriate, both within and beyond these three scales. Relative factivity is also shown to vary according to the degree of modality expressed by each of the modal verbs. The nature and degree of modality expressed interact with features of the linguistic (and pragmatic) context to determine the particular factive or a contrafactive interpretation conveyed by a given modal auxiliary token.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic and Their Applications • Michael Gr
    Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic and Their Applications • Michael Gr. Voskoglou • Michael Gr. Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic and Their Applications Edited by Michael Gr. Voskoglou Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Mathematics www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic and Their Applications Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic and Their Applications Special Issue Editor Michael Gr. Voskoglou MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tokyo • Cluj • Tianjin Special Issue Editor Michael Gr. Voskoglou Graduate Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece Greece Editorial Office MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Mathematics (ISSN 2227-7390) (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics/special issues/Fuzzy Sets). For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Article Number, Page Range. ISBN 978-3-03928-520-4 (Pbk) ISBN 978-3-03928-521-1 (PDF) c 2020 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. Contents About the Special Issue Editor ...................................... vii Preface to ”Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic and Their Applications” ...................
    [Show full text]