Complementary Lipschitz continuity results for the distribution of intersections or unions of independent random sets in finite discrete spaces

We prove that intersections and unions of independent random sets in finite spaces achieve a form of Lipschitz continuity. More precisely, given the distribution of a random set $\Xi$, the function mapping any random set distribution to the distribution of its intersection (under independence assumption) with $\Xi$ is Lipschitz continuous with unit Lipschitz constant if the space of random set distributions is endowed with a metric defined as the $L_k$ norm distance between inclusion functionals also known as commonalities. Moreover, the function mapping any random set distribution to the distribution of its union (under independence assumption) with $\Xi$ is Lipschitz continuous with unit Lipschitz constant if the space of random set distributions is endowed with a metric defined as the $L_k$ norm distance between hitting functionals also known as plausibilities. Using the epistemic random set interpretation of belief functions, we also discuss the ability of these distances to yield conflict measures. All the proofs in this paper are derived in the framework of Dempster-Shafer belief functions. Let alone the discussion on conflict measures, it is straightforward to transcribe the proofs into the general (non necessarily epistemic) random set terminology

Generalized Evidence Theory

Conflict management is still an open issue in the application of Dempster Shafer evidence theory. A lot of works have been presented to address this issue. In this paper, a new theory, called as generalized evidence theory (GET), is proposed. Compared with existing methods, GET assumes that the general situation is in open world due to the uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. The conflicting evidence is handled under the framework of GET. It is shown that the new theory can explain and deal with the conflicting evidence in a more reasonable way.Comment: 39 pages, 5 figure

Do Goedel's incompleteness theorems set absolute limits on the ability of the brain to express and communicate mental concepts verifiably?

Classical interpretations of Goedel's formal reasoning imply that the truth of some arithmetical propositions of any formal mathematical language, under any interpretation, is essentially unverifiable. However, a language of general, scientific, discourse cannot allow its mathematical propositions to be interpreted ambiguously. Such a language must, therefore, define mathematical truth verifiably. We consider a constructive interpretation of classical, Tarskian, truth, and of Goedel's reasoning, under which any formal system of Peano Arithmetic is verifiably complete. We show how some paradoxical concepts of Quantum mechanics can be expressed, and interpreted, naturally under a constructive definition of mathematical truth.Comment: 73 pages; this is an updated version of the NQ essay; an HTML version is available at http://alixcomsi.com/Do_Goedel_incompleteness_theorems.ht

Another cartoon portrait of the mind from the reductionist metaphysicians--a review of Peter Carruthers ‘The Opacity of Mind’ (2011) (review revised 2019)

Materialism, reductionism, behaviorism, functionalism, dynamic systems theory and computationalism are popular views, but they were shown by Wittgenstein to be incoherent. The study of behavior encompasses all of human life, but behavior is largely automatic and unconscious and even the conscious part, mostly expressed in language (which Wittgenstein equates with the mind), is not perspicuous, so it is critical to have a framework which Searle calls the Logical Structure of Rationality (LSR) and I call the Descriptive Psychology of Higher Order Thought (DPHOT). After summarizing the framework worked out by Wittgenstein and Searle, as extended by modern reasoning research, I show the inadequacies in Carruther’s views, which pervade most discussions of behavior, including contemporary behavioral sciences. I maintain that his book is an amalgam of two books, one a summary of cognitive psychology and the other a summary of the standard philosophical confusions on the mind with some new jargon added. I suggest that the latter should be regarded as incoherent or as a cartoon view of life and that taking Wittgenstein at his word, we can practice successful self therapy by regarding the mind/body issue as a language/body issue. Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019

Distances in evidence theory: Comprehensive survey and generalizations

AbstractThe purpose of the present work is to survey the dissimilarity measures defined so far in the mathematical framework of evidence theory, and to propose a classification of these measures based on their formal properties. This research is motivated by the fact that while dissimilarity measures have been widely studied and surveyed in the fields of probability theory and fuzzy set theory, no comprehensive survey is yet available for evidence theory. The main results presented herein include a synthesis of the properties of the measures defined so far in the scientific literature; the generalizations proposed naturally lead to additions to the body of the previously known measures, leading to the definition of numerous new measures. Building on this analysis, we have highlighted the fact that Dempster’s conflict cannot be considered as a genuine dissimilarity measure between two belief functions and have proposed an alternative based on a cosine function. Other original results include the justification of the use of two-dimensional indexes as (cosine; distance) couples and a general formulation for this class of new indexes. We base our exposition on a geometrical interpretation of evidence theory and show that most of the dissimilarity measures so far published are based on inner products, in some cases degenerated. Experimental results based on Monte Carlo simulations illustrate interesting relationships between existing measures