Logic-Based Analogical Reasoning and Learning

Analogy-making is at the core of human intelligence and creativity with applications to such diverse tasks as commonsense reasoning, learning, language acquisition, and story telling. This paper contributes to the foundations of artificial general intelligence by developing an abstract algebraic framework for logic-based analogical reasoning and learning in the setting of logic programming. The main idea is to define analogy in terms of modularity and to derive abstract forms of concrete programs from a `known' source domain which can then be instantiated in an `unknown' target domain to obtain analogous programs. To this end, we introduce algebraic operations for syntactic program composition and concatenation and illustrate, by giving numerous examples, that programs have nice decompositions. Moreover, we show how composition gives rise to a qualitative notion of syntactic program similarity. We then argue that reasoning and learning by analogy is the task of solving analogical proportions between logic programs. Interestingly, our work suggests a close relationship between modularity, generalization, and analogy which we believe should be explored further in the future. In a broader sense, this paper is a first step towards an algebraic and mainly syntactic theory of logic-based analogical reasoning and learning in knowledge representation and reasoning systems, with potential applications to fundamental AI-problems like commonsense reasoning and computational learning and creativity

How much of commonsense and legal reasoning is formalizable? A review of conceptual obstacles

Fifty years of effort in artificial intelligence (AI) and the formalization of legal reasoning have produced both successes and failures. Considerable success in organizing and displaying evidence and its interrelationships has been accompanied by failure to achieve the original ambition of AI as applied to law: fully automated legal decision-making. The obstacles to formalizing legal reasoning have proved to be the same ones that make the formalization of commonsense reasoning so difficult, and are most evident where legal reasoning has to meld with the vast web of ordinary human knowledge of the world. Underlying many of the problems is the mismatch between the discreteness of symbol manipulation and the continuous nature of imprecise natural language, of degrees of similarity and analogy, and of probabilities

Ancient Indian Logic and Analogy

B.K.Matilal, and earlier J.F.Staal, have suggested a reading of the `Nyaya five limb schema' (also sometimes referred to as the Indian Schema or Hindu Syllogism) from Gotama's Nyaya-Sutra in terms of a binary occurrence relation. In this paper we provide a rational justification of a version of this reading as Analogical Reasoning within the framework of Polyadic Pure Inductive Logic

A unitary schema for arguments by analogy

Following a Toulmian account of argument analysis and evaluation, I offer a unitary schema for, so called, deductive and inductive types of analogical arguments. This schema is able to explain why certain analogical arguments can be said to be deductive, and yet, also defeasible

Exposing Fake Logic

Exposing Fake Logic by Avi Sion is a collection of essays written after publication of his book A Fortiori Logic, in which he critically responds to derivative work by other authors who claim to know better. This is more than just polemics; but allows further clarifications of a fortiori logic and of general logic. This collection includes essays on: a fortiori argument (in general and in Judaism); Luis Duarte D’Almeida; Mahmoud Zeraatpishe; Michael Avraham (et al.); an anonymous reviewer of BDD (a Bar Ilan University journal); and self-publishing

Ratio Anselmi Revisited

The proof of God’s existence, known as Ratio Anselmi, is being analyzed. Four first-order theories are constructed to mirror versions of Anselm’s reasoning. God’s existence is shown to be provable in all of them. A traditional objection to the employment of a concept of God is overruled. And yet, Anselm’s proof is eventually found to be incorrect. The error attributed to Anselm consists in an illegitimate use of the words “greater‘ and “conceivable‘, and is identified as quaternio terminorum or petitio principii, depending on circumstances. It is claimed that there is no direct way to improve the argument

An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning: Using xTalk to Model the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act

This paper presents an introduction to artificial intelligence for legal scholars and includes a computer program that determines the existence of jurisdiction, defences, and applicability of the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victims Protection Act. The paper includes a discussion of the limits and implications of computer programming in formal representations of the law. Concluding that formalization of the law reveals implicit weaknesses in reductionist legal theories, this paper emphasizes the limitations in practice of such theories

Analogy, Semantics, and Hermeneutics: The “Concept versus Judgment” Critique of Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia

Page range: 241-26