Reasoning by Analogy as a Partial Identity Between Models
نویسندگان
چکیده
We present in this paper a formal theory of reasoning by analogy. We are mainly concerned with three subjects : a formal definition of analogy, a formalization of the reasoning in terms of deduction, and a method for realizing the reasoning in a logic programming system. First we assume that each domain for the reasoning is the least model for logic program. Then we consider an analogy as a partial identity between the models. Secondly we introduce a notion of rule transformation which transforms rules in one domain into those in the other. Then we can formalize the reasoning as a system with three inference rules : instantiation of rules, modus ponens, and the rule transformation. Finally, based on the formalization, we present an extended pureProlog interpreter which performs the detection of analogy and the reasoning by the partial identity at the same time.
منابع مشابه
Towards a Mathematical Theory of Analogy
This paper presents a mathematical theory of analogy, which should be a basis in developing analogical reasoning by a computer. The analogy is a partial identity between two sets of facts. In order to compare several analogies, we introduce an ordering of analogies, and we define two types of optimal analogies, maximal analogies and greatest ones. We show a condition under which the greatest an...
متن کاملAnalogy in Farabi's Thought
Thinkers and philosophers have constantly benefited from different approaches of reasoning to explore and justify their ideas. Theses reasoning approaches are considered as the principle instruments in speculative activities of the thinkers. To this end to achieve the procedure of thinking and the way philosophers achieve objectives, it is necessary to recognize their reasoni...
متن کاملModels of clinical reasoning with a focus on general practice: a critical review
Introduction: Diagnosis lies at the heart of general practice.Every day general practitioners (GPs) visit patients with awide variety of complaints and concerns, with often minor butsometimes serious symptoms. General practice has many featureswhich differentiate it from specialty care setting, but during thelast four decades little attention was paid to clinical reasoningin general practice. T...
متن کاملWhy Precedent in Law (and Elsewhere) is Not Totally (or Even Substantially) About Analogy.
Cognitive scientists who conduct research on analogical reasoning often claim that precedent in law is an application of reasoning by analogy. In fact, however, law's principle of precedent, as well as the use of precedent in ordinary argument, is quite different. The typical use of analogy in law, including analogies to earlier decisions, involves retrieval of a source analog (or exemplar) fro...
متن کاملAnalogy, Decision, And Theory-Formation As Defeasible Reasoning
The development of computationally informed formalisms for reasoning with defeasible rules affords new accounts of familiar forms of reasoning. This paper points to recent accounts of defeasible reasoning and portrays analogy, decision, and theory-formation as essentially defeasible, in the same way that statistical reasoning has been portrayed. Each portrayal depends largely on the idea of par...
متن کامل