Semantics of fuzzy quantifiers

The aim of this thesis is to discuss the semantics of FQs (fuzzy quantifiers), formal semantics in particular. The approach used is fuzzy semantic based on fuzzy set theory (Zadeh 1965, 1975), i.e. we explore primarily the denotational meaning of FQs represented by membership functions. Some empirical data from both Chinese and English is used for illustration. A distinguishing characteristic of the semantics of FQs like about 200 students and many students as opposed to other sorts of quantifiers like every student and no students, is that they have fuzzy meaning boundaries. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the doctrine that a proposition is either true or false has a limited application in natural languages, which raises a serious question towards any linguistic theories that are based on a binary assumption. In other words, the number of elements in a domain that must satisfy a predicate is not precisety given by an FQ and so a proposition con¬ taining one may be more or less true depending on how closely numbers of elements approximate to a given norm. The most significant conclusion drawn here is that FQs are compositional in that FQs of the same type function in the same way to generate a constant semantic pattern. It is argued that although basic membership functions are subject to modification depending on context, they vary only with certain limits (i.e. FQs are motivated—neither completely predicated nor completely arbitrary), which does not deny compositionality in any way. A distinctive combination of compositionality and motivation of FQs makes my formal semantic framework of FQs unique in the way that although some specific values, such as a norm, have to be determined pragmatically, semantic and inferential patterns are systematic and predictable. A number of interdisciplinary implications, such as semantic, general linguistic, logic and psychological, are discussed. The study here seems to be a somewhat troublesome but potentially important area for developing theories (and machines) capable of dealing with, and accounting for, natural languages

Proposal For a Study of Commonsense Physical Reasoning

This report describes research done at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support for the laboratory's artificial intelligence research is provided in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense under Office of Naval Research contract N00014-80-C-0505.Our common sense views of physics are the first coin in our intellectual capital; understanding precisely what they contain could be very important both for understanding ourselves and for making machines more like us. This proposal describes a domain that has been designed for studying reasoning about constrained motion and describes my theories about performing such reasoning. The issues examined include qualitative reasoning about shape and physical processes, as well as ways of using knowledge about motion other than "envisioning". Being a proposal, the treatment of these issues is necessarily cursory and incomplete.MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agenc

The posterity of Zadeh's 50-year-old paper: A retrospective in 101 Easy Pieces – and a Few More

International audienceThis article was commissioned by the 22nd IEEE International Conference of Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE) to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Lotfi Zadeh's seminal 1965 paper on fuzzy sets. In addition to Lotfi's original paper, this note itemizes 100 citations of books and papers deemed “important (significant, seminal, etc.)” by 20 of the 21 living IEEE CIS Fuzzy Systems pioneers. Each of the 20 contributors supplied 5 citations, and Lotfi's paper makes the overall list a tidy 101, as in “Fuzzy Sets 101”. This note is not a survey in any real sense of the word, but the contributors did offer short remarks to indicate the reason for inclusion (e.g., historical, topical, seminal, etc.) of each citation. Citation statistics are easy to find and notoriously erroneous, so we refrain from reporting them - almost. The exception is that according to Google scholar on April 9, 2015, Lotfi's 1965 paper has been cited 55,479 times