1: %% This document created by Scientific Word (R) Version 3.5

2: 

3: \documentclass[11pt]{article}%

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}%

6: \usepackage{amsfonts}%

7: \usepackage{amssymb}

8: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=latex2.dll}

9: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=LaTeX article (bright).cst}

10: %TCIDATA{Created=Thursday, April 18, 2002 00:13:09}

11: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Wednesday, September 24, 2003 14:10:23}

12: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

13: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="DocumentShell" CONTENT="Articles\SW\Standard LaTeX Article">}

14: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

15: \newtheorem{acknowledgement}[theorem]{Acknowledgement}

16: \newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{Algorithm}

17: \newtheorem{axiom}[theorem]{Axiom}

18: \newtheorem{case}[theorem]{Case}

19: \newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}

20: \newtheorem{conclusion}[theorem]{Conclusion}

21: \newtheorem{condition}[theorem]{Condition}

22: \newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}

23: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

24: \newtheorem{criterion}[theorem]{Criterion}

25: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

26: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}

27: \newtheorem{exercise}[theorem]{Exercise}

28: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

29: \newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}

30: \newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}

31: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

32: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

33: \newtheorem{solution}[theorem]{Solution}

34: \newtheorem{summary}[theorem]{Summary}

35: \newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof]{\textbf{#1.} }{\ \rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}

36: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.75in}                            

37: \setlength{\textheight}{9.00in}                           

38: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.125 in}                              

39: \setlength{\topmargin}{-.60 in}     

40: 

41: 

42: \begin{document}

43: 

44: \title{The Liar and Related Paradoxes:\\Fuzzy Truth Value Assignment \\for Collections of Self-Referential Sentences}

45: \author{K. Vezerides\\vezerid@ac.anatolia.edu.gr

46: \and and

47: \and Ath. Kehagias\\kehagiat@gen.auth.gr\\http://users.auth.gr/ \symbol{126}kehagiat}

48: \maketitle

49: 

50: \begin{abstract}

51: We study self-referential sentences of the type related to the \emph{Liar

52: paradox}. In particular, we consider the problem of assigning consistent fuzzy

53: truth values to \emph{collections of self-referential sentences}. We show that

54: the problem can be reduced to the solution of a system of nonlinear equations.

55: Furthermore, we prove that, under mild conditions, such a system always has a

56: solution (i.e. a consistent truth value assignment) and that, for a particular

57: implementation of logical ``and'', ``or'' and ``negation'', the ``mid-point''

58: solution is always consistent. Next we turn to computational issues and

59: present several truth-value assignment algorithms; we argue that these

60: algorithms can be understood as generalized sequential reasoning. In an

61: Appendix we present a large number of examples of self-referential collections

62: (including the Liar and the Strengthened Liar), we formulate the corresponding

63: truth value equations and solve them analytically and/ or numerically.

64: 

65: \end{abstract}

66: 

67: \noindent\textbf{Keywords}. Self-reference, liar paradox, truth, fuzzy logic,

68: nonlinear equations, root finding algorithms.

69: 

70: \section{Introduction}

71: 

72: \label{sec01}

73: 

74: \emph{Self referential sentences }are sentences which talk about themselves.

75: Sentences of this type often generate logical \emph{paradoxes}, the study of

76: which goes back to the ancient Greeks. Many approaches have been proposed to

77: neutralize the paradoxes. In this paper we study the problem from the point of

78: fuzzy logic.

79: 

80: The prototypical example of a self-referential sentence is the \emph{Liar

81: Sentence}: Epimenides the Cretan has supposedly uttered the following

82: sentence:

83: \[

84: \text{``All Cretans are liars.''}%

85: \]

86: The Liar sentence generates a paradox. To see this consider whether the

87: sentence is true or false. Following a somewhat loose chain of reasoning, let

88: us assume ``All Cretans are liars'' to mean that everything a Cretan says is

89: not true. Since Epimenides is a Cretan, his statement that ``All Cretans are

90: liars'' is not true; if we take ``not true'' to mean ``false'', then the

91: \emph{opposite }of ``All Cretans are liars'' must be true; and if we take this

92: opposite to be ``All Cretans are truth-tellers'', then what Epimenides says

93: must be true, i.e. it is true that ``All Cretans are liars''; but then it must

94: be the case that what Epimenides says is false. It seems that we have entered

95: a vicious circle, concluding first that Epimenides' statement is false, then

96: that it is true, then again that it is false and so on ad infinitum.

97: 

98: The above reasoning is not rigorous, since, for example, ``All Cretans are

99: liars'' does not necessarily mean that all Cretans \emph{always }utter false

100: statements; similarly the negation of ``All Cretans are liars'' is

101: ``\emph{Some} Cretans are truth-tellers'' and so on.

102: 

103: But the paradox also appears under more exact reasoning. Consider the

104: following sentence:

105: \[

106: \text{``This sentence is false.''}%

107: \]

108: In this case, if we assume the sentence to be true, then what it says must

109: hold, i.e. the sentence must be false. But then its opposite must be true,

110: i.e. it must be true that ``This sentence is true''. But then it is true that

111: ``This sentence is false'' and we have again entered an oscillation between

112: two conclusions: first that the sentence is false, then that it is true.

113: Notice that we would enter a similar oscillation if we started by assuming the

114: sentence to be false; then we would conclude that the sentence is true, which

115: would mean that the sentence is false etc. A similar effect can be obtained

116: using two sentences. The following pair is the so-called \emph{inconsistent

117: dualist}:

118: \begin{align*}

119: A_{1}  &  =\text{``Sentence }A_{2}\text{ is true''}\\

120: A_{2}  &  =\text{``Sentence }A_{1}\text{ is false''.}%

121: \end{align*}

122: If $A_{1}$ is true, then $A_{2}$ is also true; but then $A_{1}$ must be false

123: and so $A_{2}$ must be false and so on ad infinitum.

124: 

125: Note that self-reference does not \emph{necessarily }lead to paradox. The

126: following pair is the so-called \emph{consistent dualist}:

127: \begin{align*}

128: A_{1} &  =\text{``Sentence }A_{2}\text{ is true''}\\

129: A_{2} &  =\text{``Sentence }A_{1}\text{ is true''.}%

130: \end{align*}

131: If $A_{1}$ is true, then $A_{2}$ is also true, which confirms that $A_{1}$ is

132: true. In short, accepting that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ are both true is perfectly

133: consistent. However, note that we could equally well assume that $A_{1}$ is

134: false, which would mean that $A_{2}$ is also false, which confirms that

135: $A_{1}$ is false. In short, we can also accept that $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ are

136: both false. Is this a problem? We will consider some possible answers in the sequel.

137: 

138: We have already mentioned that self-referential sentences have been studied

139: extensively, and from several different points of view. In this section we

140: will only discuss some work which is directly related to the current paper; a

141: more extensive discussion of the literature will be presented in Section

142: \ref{sec06}.

143: 

144: The application of fuzzy logic to the Liar paradox goes back to a paper by

145: Zadeh \cite{Zadeh}; in summary, he resolves the paradox by assigning to the

146: Liar sentence a truth value of 1/2. Following Zadeh's paper, several authors

147: have analyzed self-reference using fuzzy logic (for more details see Section

148: \ref{sec06}).

149: 

150: The current paper has been heavily motivated by the work of Grim and his

151: collaborators \cite{Grim1,Grim4,Grim3,Grim2}. Grim considers collections of

152: self-referential sentences and models the \emph{fuzzy reasoning process }as a

153: \emph{dynamical system}. A method is presented to map each self-referential

154: collection to a dynamical system which represents the reasoning process. Each

155: sentence of the self-referential collection has a \emph{time-evolving fuzzy

156: truth value }which corresponds to a \emph{state variable} of the dynamical

157: system. Grim presents several examples of self-referential collections and

158: studies the properties of the corresponding dynamical systems. One of the main

159: points of \cite{Grim1} is that self-referential collections can generate

160: \emph{oscillating} or \emph{chaotic} dynamical behavior.

161: 

162: Grim's formulation is an essential starting point for the current paper; but

163: the issues we address are rather different. Our main interest is in obtaining

164: \emph{consistent truth value assignments}, similarly to \cite{Zadeh} and

165: unlike Grim who concentrates on oscillatory behavior. A more detailed

166: understanding of our approach can be obtained by the following outline of the paper.

167: 

168: In Section \ref{sec02} we present the logical framework which will be used for

169: the study of self-referential sentences. In this we follow very closely Grim's

170: formulation. In Section \ref{sec03}, we reduce the problem of consistent truth

171: value assignment to the solution of a system of \emph{algebraic}\footnote{I.e.

172: static, \emph{not} time-evolving.} nonlinear equations. Such a system will, in

173: general, possess more than one solution. It is a rather remarkable fact that,

174: for a very broad family of self-referential collections, the corresponding

175: equations possess \emph{at least }one solution, i.e. a consistent fuzzy truth

176: value assignment is \emph{always} possible, under some mild continuity

177: conditions; this is the subject of our Proposition \ref{cnt0303}. In Section

178: \ref{sec04} we turn to the \emph{computation }of the solutions. We consider

179: this as a separate, \emph{algorithm-dependent} sub-problem. In other words,

180: the same system of algebraic equations can be solved by many different

181: algorithms. We consider several such algorithms and, returning to Grim's point

182: of view, we study the dynamics of each algorithm. In a certain sense, each

183: such algorithm can be understood as a particular reasoning style, and

184: ``human-style'', sequential reasoning of the form ``if $A_{1}$ then $A_{2}$,

185: if $A_{2}$ then not-$A_{1}$ etc.'' \ is one among many options. In Section

186: \ref{sec06} we take a brief look at the literature on self-referential

187: sentences, paradoxes and related topics and relate it to our approach. In

188: Section \ref{sec07} we summarize and discuss our results. Finally, in the

189: Appendix we present several specific examples of self-referential collections,

190: formulate the corresponding equations and solve them analytically and/or

191: numerically, by using the previously presented algorithms; we also compare the

192: behavior of the algorithms.

193: 

194: \section{The Logic Framework}

195: 

196: \label{sec02}

197: 

198: The general object of our interest is a finite collection of $M$ sentences

199: which talk about each other's truth value (i.e. a self-referential

200: collection); in particular we explore the extend to which the internal

201: structure of such a system determines the truth values of the sentences. This

202: question will be answered mainly in Section \ref{sec0302}. In this section we

203: introduce the logical framework which is necessary to address the problem.

204: This framework is quite similar to the one used in \cite{Grim1}.

205: 

206: We start with a finite set $\mathbf{V}_{1}$, the set of \emph{1st-level

207: elementary sentences }(also called \emph{variables}):

208: \[

209: \mathbf{V}_{1}=\left\{  A_{1},A_{2},...,A_{M}\right\}  .

210: \]

211: From the 1st level variables we \emph{recursively }build $\mathbf{S}_{1}$, the

212: set of \emph{1st level sentences} (also called logical \emph{formulas}):

213: \begin{align}

214: \text{If }A_{m} &  \in\mathbf{V}_{1}\text{ then }A_{m}\in\mathbf{S}%

215: _{1}\nonumber\\

216: \text{If }B_{1},B_{2} &  \in\mathbf{S}_{1}\text{ then }B_{1}\vee B_{2}%

217: ,B_{1}\wedge B_{2},B_{1}^{\prime}\in\mathbf{S}_{1,}\label{eq001}%

218: \end{align}

219: where $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$ are the logical operators \emph{or, and,

220: negation} \footnote{We take the informal point of view that precedence of

221: operators, grouping of terms etc. are well understood from the context and do

222: not require special explanation. Similalrly, we treat the use of parentheses

223: in a completely informal manner.}. Note that $\mathbf{V}_{1}\subseteq

224: \mathbf{S}_{1}$.

225: 

226: Next we build $\mathbf{V}_{2}$, the set of \emph{2nd level elementary

227: sentences}:

228: \[

229: \mathbf{V}_{2}=\left\{  \text{``Tr}\left(  B\right)  =b\text{''}%

230: :B\in\mathbf{S}_{1},b\in\left[  0,1\right]  \right\}

231: \]

232: where Tr$\left(  ...\right)  $ is shorthand for ``The truth value of ...''; in

233: other words, ``Tr$\left(  B\right)  =b$'' means ``The truth value of $B$ is

234: $b$''. Finally, we recursively build $\mathbf{S}_{2}$, the set \emph{2nd level

235: sentences}:

236: \begin{align}

237: \text{If }C  &  \in\mathbf{V}_{2}\text{ then }C\in\mathbf{S}_{2}\nonumber\\

238: \text{If }D_{1},D_{2}  &  \in\mathbf{S}_{2}\text{ then }D_{1}\vee D_{2}%

239: ,D_{1}\wedge D_{2},D_{1}^{\prime}\in\mathbf{S}_{2.} \label{eq002}%

240: \end{align}

241: where $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$ again stand for or, and, negation \footnote{From

242: the mathematical point of view, the symbols $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$ denote

243: different operators in (\ref{eq001}) and in (\ref{eq002}): in the first case

244: they operate on elements of $\mathbf{S}_{1}$ while in the second case they

245: operate on elements of $\mathbf{S}_{2}$; but their logical interpretation is

246: the same in both cases.}. Note that $\mathbf{V}_{2}\subseteq\mathbf{S}_{2}$.

247: 

248: We will occasionally use the terms \emph{elementary truth value assessments

249: }for the elements of $\mathbf{V}_{2}$ and \emph{truth value assessments }for

250: the elements of $\mathbf{S}_{2}$. Also, we define a special subset of

251: \ $\mathbf{V}_{2}$ and the corresponding subset of $\mathbf{S}_{2}$ as

252: follows. The elementary \emph{Boolean }truth value assessments are denoted by

253: $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{2}$ and defined by

254: \[

255: \widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{2}=\left\{  \text{``Tr}\left(  B\right)

256: =b\text{''}:B\in\mathbf{S}_{1},b\in\left\{  0,1\right\}  \right\}  .

257: \]

258: The \emph{Boolean }truth value assessments are denoted by $\widetilde

259: {\mathbf{S}}_{2}$ and defined recursively as follows

260: \begin{align*}

261: \text{If }C  &  \in\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{2}\text{ then }C\in\widetilde

262: {\mathbf{S}}_{2}\\

263: \text{If }D_{1},D_{2}  &  \in\widetilde{\mathbf{S}}_{2}\text{ then }D_{1}\vee

264: D_{2},D_{1}\wedge D_{2},D_{1}^{\prime}\in\widetilde{\mathbf{S}}_{2.}%

265: \end{align*}

266: Again we have $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{2}\subseteq\widetilde{\mathbf{S}}_{2}$.

267: 

268: Obviously, we can keep building up the hierarchy of sentences, defining

269: $\mathbf{V}_{n}$ in terms of $\mathbf{S}_{n-1}$ and $\mathbf{S}_{n}$ in terms

270: of $\mathbf{V}_{n}$; but going up to $\mathbf{V}_{2},\mathbf{S}_{2}$ will be

271: sufficient for the purposes of this paper. Let us conclude this section by

272: giving some examples of elements from $\mathbf{V}_{1},\mathbf{S}%

273: _{1},\mathbf{V}_{2},\mathbf{S}_{2}$.

274: \begin{align*}

275: \mathbf{V}_{1}  &  :A_{1},A_{2},...,A_{M}.\\

276: \mathbf{S}_{1}  &  :A_{1}\vee A_{3},A_{2}^{\prime},\left(  A_{2}\wedge

277: A_{4}\right)  \vee A_{5}^{\prime}\text{ ... etc.}\\

278: \mathbf{V}_{2}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  =1\text{'', ``Tr}\left(

279: A_{7}^{\prime}\right)  =0\text{'', ``Tr}\left(  \left(  A_{2}\vee

280: A_{3}\right)  \wedge A_{1}\right)  =0.3\text{'' ... etc.}\\

281: \mathbf{S}_{2}  &  :\left[  \text{``Tr}\left(  A_{1}^{\prime}\right)

282: =0\text{''}\wedge\text{ ``Tr}\left(  \left(  A_{1}\vee A_{4}\right)  \wedge

283: A_{2}\right)  =0.3\text{''}\right]  \vee\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{3}\right)

284: =0.8\text{'' ... etc.}%

285: \end{align*}

286: 

287: \section{Truth Value Assignment}

288: 

289: \label{sec03}

290: 

291: Our main goal is to assign truth values to sentences of the 2nd level (i.e. to

292: elements of $\mathbf{S}_{2}$). As it turns out we will also need, as an

293: intermediate step, to assign truth values to sentences of the 1st level (i.e.

294: to elements of $\mathbf{S}_{1}$). In this section we present two ways of

295: achieving this. Our main interest is in the second method, presented in

296: Section \ref{sec0302}, the so-called \emph{implicit truth }value assignment,

297: which makes use of the self-referential nature of a particular collection.

298: However, for purposes of comparison, in Section \ref{sec0301} we will review

299: the ``classical'', \emph{explicit }method for truth value assignment to

300: \emph{non}-self-referential sentences.

301: 

302: \subsection{Explicit Truth Value Assignment}

303: 

304: \label{sec0301}

305: 

306: The following explicit method of assigning truth values to elements of

307: $\mathbf{S}_{1}$ is well known. We start by assigning an arbitrary truth value

308: to every element of $\mathbf{V}_{1}$ (1st level variable). This is equivalent

309: to selecting a function $x:\mathbf{V}_{1}\rightarrow\left[  0,1\right]  $,

310: i.e. $\forall A_{m}\in\mathbf{V}_{1}$ we have Tr$\left(  A_{m}\right)

311: =x\left(  A_{m}\right)  $; for the sake of brevity we will henceforth use the

312: simpler notation

313: \[

314: \forall A_{m}\in\mathbf{V}_{1}:\text{Tr}\left(  A_{m}\right)  =x_{m}.

315: \]

316: Next, take any $B\in\mathbf{S}_{1}$; it is a logical formula with variables

317: $A_{1},...,A_{M}$. If we replace every occurrence of $A_{m}$ with $x_{m}$ then

318: we obtain a numerical formula containing the variables $x_{1},...,x_{M}$ and

319: the operators $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$. To obtain the truth value of $B$ we

320: choose a particular \emph{numerical implementation of }$\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$

321: and perform the numerical calculations . I.e.

322: \begin{align*}

323: B &  =F_{B}\left(  A_{1},...,A_{m}\right)  \\

324: \text{Tr}\left(  B\right)   &  =f_{B}\left(  \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)

325: ,...,\text{Tr}\left(  A_{M}\right)  \right)

326: \end{align*}

327: or, more concisely,%

328: \[

329: \text{Tr}\left(  B\right)  =f_{B}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  .

330: \]

331: Here $F_{B}$ is a \emph{logical} formula ($F_{B}:\mathbf{V}_{1}\rightarrow

332: \mathbf{S}_{1}$) and $f_{B}$ is the corresponding \emph{numerical }formula

333: ($f_{B}:\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}\rightarrow\left[  0,1\right]  $) obtained by

334: replacing $A_{m}$ with $x_{m}$ and now understanding the symbols $\vee

335: ,\wedge,^{\prime}$ as \emph{numerical }operators (specific examples of the

336: procedure appear in the Appendix). The implementation of the logical operators

337: $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$ by numerical operators, namely \emph{t-conorms},

338: \emph{t-norms} and \emph{negations},\emph{\ }has been studied extensively by

339: fuzzy logicians \cite{Klir,Nguyen}. Several typical implementations are

340: presented in Table 1.

341: \[%

342: \begin{tabular}

343: [c]{|c|c|c|c|}\hline

344: \textbf{Family} & $x\wedge y$ & $x\vee y$ & $x^{\prime}$\\\hline\hline

345: Standard & min($x,y$) & max($x,y$) & $1-x$\\\hline

346: Algebraic & $xy$ & $x+y-xy$ & $1-x$\\\hline

347: Bounded & max($0,x+y-1$) & min($1,x+y$) & $1-x$\\\hline

348: Drastic & $\left(

349: \begin{array}

350: [c]{cl}%

351: x & \text{when }y=1\\

352: y & \text{when }x=1\\

353: 0 & \text{else}%

354: \end{array}

355: \right)  $ & $\left(

356: \begin{array}

357: [c]{cl}%

358: x & \text{when }y=0\\

359: y & \text{when }x=0\\

360: 1 & \text{else}%

361: \end{array}

362: \right)  $ & $1-x$\\\hline

363: \end{tabular}

364: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

365: \]

366: 

367: \begin{center}

368: \textbf{Table 1}

369: \end{center}

370: 

371: In the above manner, the truth value assignment originally defined on

372: $\mathbf{V}_{1}$ (i.e. Tr$\left(  A_{m}\right)  =x_{m}$, $m=1,2,...,M$)\ has

373: been extended to $\mathbf{S}_{1}$. Now we can use the truth values of 1st

374: level sentences to assign truth values to 2nd level elementary sentences as

375: follows. Given a $C\in\mathbf{V}_{2}$, which has the form

376: \[

377: C=\text{``Tr}\left(  B\right)  =b\text{''}%

378: \]

379: with $B\in\mathbf{S}_{1}$, $b\in\left[  0,1\right]  $, we \emph{define}

380: \begin{equation}

381: \text{Tr}\left(  C\right)  =1-\left|  \text{Tr}\left(  B\right)  -b\right|  .

382: \label{eq0203}%

383: \end{equation}

384: Tr$\left(  B\right)  $ in (\ref{eq0203}) has already been defined, since

385: $B\in\mathbf{S}_{1}$. Note that, according to (\ref{eq0203}), the maximum

386: truth value of $C$ is 1 and it is achieved when Tr$\left(  B\right)  =b$; the

387: latter is exactly what $C$ says. More generally, the truth value of $C$ is a

388: decreasing function of the absolute difference between Tr$\left(  B\right)  $

389: and $b$. This certainly appears reasonable\footnote{For further justification

390: of (\ref{eq0203}) see \cite{Grim1}. Note however, that a number of other

391: functions could be used; a simple example is Tr$\left(  C\right)  =1-\left(

392: \text{Tr}\left(  B\right)  -b\right)  ^{2}$.}. In this manner we can compute

393: the truth value of every $C\in\mathbf{V}_{2}$. Finally, we can extend truth

394: values from $\mathbf{V}_{2}$ to $\mathbf{S}_{2}$ in exactly the same manner as

395: we extended truth values from $\mathbf{V}_{1}$ to $\mathbf{S}_{1}$.

396: 

397: Hence starting with a truth value assignment $x_{1},...,x_{M}$ on

398: $\mathbf{V}_{1}$ we have obtained a truth value assignment for every

399: $D\in\mathbf{S}_{2}$, namely

400: \[

401: \text{Tr}\left(  D\right)  =f_{D}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)

402: \]

403: where $f_{D}:\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}\rightarrow\left[  0,1\right]  $. This

404: \emph{explicit }assignment of truth values does not involve any self-reference

405: or circularity: starting with the initial specification of the truth values of

406: $A_{1},...,A_{M}$ as $x_{1},...,x_{M}$, the truth values of all (1st and 2nd

407: level)\ sentences are obtained as functions of $x_{1},...,x_{M}$.

408: 

409: \subsection{Implicit Truth Value Assignment}

410: 

411: \label{sec0302}

412: 

413: Now suppose that we have a collection of $M$ sentences, which talk about the

414: truth values of each other. We will show a method by which the information

415: each sentence conveys about the truth value of the other sentences (possibly

416: also about its own truth value)\ can be used to determine (up to a point) the

417: truth values in a consistent manner.

418: 

419: The previously presented framework gives a formal description of sentences

420: which talk about the truth values of other sentences. In particular, members

421: of $\mathbf{S}_{2}$ talk about the truth values of members of $\mathbf{S}%

422: _{1}\supseteq\mathbf{V}_{1}$. Our approach can be summarized as follows.

423: 

424: Suppose we are given $M$ self-referential sentences and consider the set

425: $\mathbf{S}_{2}$ which is generated from $M$ elementary sentences. We can pick

426: sentences $D_{1},$..., $D_{M}$ $\in\mathbf{S}_{2}$ which have the same

427: structure as the original self-referential sentences (examples of the

428: procedure appear in the Appendix). The only difference is that the $M$

429: self-referential sentences talk about each other, while $D_{1},$..., $D_{M}$

430: talk about some elementary, unspecified sentences $A_{1}$, ..., $A_{M}$.

431: However, since $A_{1}$, ..., $A_{M}$ are unspecified, we can identify $A_{m}$

432: with $D_{m}$ (for $m\in\left\{  1,...,M\right\}  $). Intuitively, this means

433: that $D_{m}$ says something about the truth values of $A_{1},$..., $A_{M}$,

434: i.e. about the truth values of $D_{1},$..., $D_{M}$. This is exactly the

435: situation which we were trying to model in the first place. While

436: philosophical objections can be raised about this type of self-reference, the

437: situation is quite straightforward from the computational point of view (as

438: will be seen in the following) and allows the determination of consistent

439: truth values.

440: 

441: Let us now give the mathematical details. As mentioned at the end of Section

442: \ref{sec0301}, the truth value of every 2nd level sentence $D\in\mathbf{S}%

443: _{2}$ (for fixed $M$ and a specific choice of t-norm, t-conorm and negation)

444: is a numerical function $f_{D}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  $, the

445: independent variables $x_{1},...,x_{M}$ being the truth values of

446: $A_{1},...,A_{M}$. To obtain specific truth values by the procedure of Section

447: \ref{sec0301}, it is necessary to specify $x_{1},...,x_{M}$. Choose a function

448: $\Phi:\left\{  1,2,...,M\right\}  \rightarrow\mathbf{S}_{2}$. $\Phi\left(

449: 1\right)  $, $\Phi\left(  2\right)  $, ..., $\Phi\left(  M\right)  $ are 2nd

450: level sentences\footnote{Obviously, in a particular situation we will choose

451: these sentences which have the same structure as the self-referntial sentences

452: in which we are interested -- see the Appendix.} which can also be denoted as

453: $D_{1},$..., $D_{M}$. Now (for $m\in\left\{  1,...,M\right\}  $) $D_{m}$ is a

454: logical formula $F_{m}\left(  A_{1},...,A_{M}\right)  $. In other words, we

455: have (for $m=1,2,...,M$):

456: \begin{align*}

457: D_{1}  &  =F_{1}\left(  A_{1},...,A_{M}\right) \\

458: D_{2}  &  =F_{2}\left(  A_{1},...,A_{M}\right) \\

459: &  ...\\

460: D_{M}  &  =F_{M}\left(  A_{1},...,A_{M}\right)  .

461: \end{align*}

462: Let us form the system of logical equations

463: \begin{align}

464: A_{1}  &  =D_{1}=F_{1}\left(  A_{1},...,A_{M}\right) \nonumber\\

465: A_{2}  &  =D_{2}=F_{2}\left(  A_{1},...,A_{M}\right) \nonumber\\

466: &  ...\label{eq0205}\\

467: A_{M}  &  =D_{M}=F_{M}\left(  A_{1},...,A_{M}\right)  .\nonumber

468: \end{align}

469: The ``natural'' interpretation of (\ref{eq0205}) is that $A_{m}$ \emph{says }

470: (or is, or means) $D_{m}$. (\ref{eq0205}) implies that:

471: \begin{align}

472: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)   &  =\text{Tr}\left(  D_{1}\right)

473: =f_{1}\left(  \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  ,...,\text{Tr}\left(

474: A_{M}\right)  \right) \nonumber\\

475: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)   &  =\text{Tr}\left(  D_{2}\right)

476: =f_{2}\left(  \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  ,...,\text{Tr}\left(

477: A_{M}\right)  \right) \nonumber\\

478: &  ...\label{eq0206}\\

479: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{M}\right)   &  =\text{Tr}\left(  D_{M}\right)

480: =f_{M}\left(  \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  ,...,\text{Tr}\left(

481: A_{M}\right)  \right) \nonumber

482: \end{align}

483: where $f_{m}:\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}\rightarrow\left[  0,1\right]  $ is the

484: numerical formula obtained (by the procedure of Section \ref{sec0301}) from

485: $F_{m}$. A simpler way to write (\ref{eq0206}) is

486: \begin{align}

487: x_{1}  &  =f_{1}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right) \nonumber\\

488: x_{2}  &  =f_{2}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right) \nonumber\\

489: &  ...\label{eq0207}\\

490: x_{M}  &  =f_{M}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  .\nonumber

491: \end{align}

492: (\ref{eq0207}) is a system of $M$ numerical equations in $M$ unknowns; we will

493: refer to it as the system of \emph{truth value equations}. Note that in

494: general the truth value equations will be nonlinear.

495: 

496: Depending on the particular $\Phi$ used, (\ref{eq0207})\ may have none, one or

497: more than one solutions in $\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}.$ Hence, by specifying a

498: particular $\Phi$, we obtain a \emph{set} of possible \emph{consistent }truth

499: value assignments for the 1st level elementary sentences. In other words,

500: every solution of (\ref{eq0207})\ is a consistent truth value assignment. At

501: this point we must consider the possibility that the set of solutions is

502: empty, i.e. that there is no consistent truth value assignment. However, as we

503: will soon see, under mild conditions there always exists at least one

504: consistent assignment. Assuming that (\ref{eq0207})\ has one or more

505: solutions, we can choose one of these to assign truth values to the 1st level

506: elementary sentences; next, using exactly the same construction as in Section

507: \ref{sec0301}, we can assign truth values to 1st level sentences, then to 2nd

508: level elementary sentences and finally to 2nd level sentences. In particular,

509: it is easy to check that at the end of the procedure the 2nd level sentences

510: $D_{1},...,D_{M}$ will receive the truth values originally specified by the

511: solution of (\ref{eq0207}) -- hence the truth value assignment is, indeed, consistent.

512: 

513: Let us now show that, under mild conditions, every $\Phi$ function specifies

514: \emph{at least} one consistent truth value assignment. This is the subject of

515: Proposition \ref{cnt0303}. However, we first need two auxiliary propositions.

516: 

517: \begin{proposition}

518: \label{cnt0301}If the implementations of $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$ are,

519: respectively, a continuous t-conorm, a continuous t-norm and a continuous

520: negation, then $f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{M}$ in (\ref{eq0207})\ are continuous

521: functions of $\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  $.

522: \end{proposition}

523: 

524: \begin{proof}

525: We give a sketch of the proof (we omit the complete proof for the sake of

526: brevity; the basic idea is clear enough.). Suppose that $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime

527: }$ are a continuous t-conorm, t-norm and negation. Take some $m\in\left\{

528: 1,2,...,M\right\}  $. Recall that $f_{m}\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)

529: =$Tr$\left(  D_{m}\right)  $, where $D_{m}\in\mathbf{S}_{2}$. Now, take any

530: $B\in\mathbf{S}_{1}$; then Tr$\left(  B\right)  =y\left(  x_{1},x_{2}%

531: ,...,x_{M}\right)  $ and $y$ is a finite combination of $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime

532: }$ and $x_{1},...,x_{M}$, which is clearly a continuous function of the

533: vector\footnote{We use column vectors; the superscript $T$ indicates the

534: transpose.} $\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  ^{T}$. Furthermore, let

535: $C=$``Tr$\left(  B\right)  =b$''; then

536: \[

537: \text{Tr}\left(  C\right)  =1-\left|  \text{Tr}\left(  B\right)  -b\right|

538: =1-\left|  y\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  -b\right|

539: \]

540: which is also a continuous function of $\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)

541: ^{T}$. Since this is true for every $B\in\mathbf{S}_{1}$ and every

542: $b\in\left[  0,1\right]  $, we conclude that Tr$\left(  C\right)  $ is a

543: continuous function of $x=\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  ^{T}$ for

544: \emph{every} $C\in\mathbf{V}_{2}$. Finally, since $D_{m}\in\mathbf{S}_{2}$,

545: and Tr$\left(  D_{m}\right)  $ is a finite combination of $\vee,\wedge

546: ,^{\prime}$ and a finite number of terms Tr$\left(  C_{1}\right)  $,

547: Tr$\left(  C_{2}\right)  $, ..., Tr$\left(  C_{L}\right)  $ (where

548: $C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{L}\in\mathbf{V}_{2}$) it follows that Tr$\left(

549: D_{m}\right)  $ is a continuous function of $\left(  x_{1},x_{2}%

550: ,...,x_{M}\right)  ^{T}$.

551: \end{proof}

552: 

553: \begin{proposition}

554: \label{cnt0302}Suppose that $X$ is a nonempty, compact, convex set in $R^{M}$.

555: If the function $f:X\rightarrow X$ is continuous, then there exists at least

556: one fixed point $\overline{x}\in X$ satisfying

557: \[

558: \overline{x}=f\left(  \overline{x}\right)  .

559: \]

560: \end{proposition}

561: 

562: \begin{proof}

563: This the well-known \emph{Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem}. Its proof can be

564: found in a number of standard texts, for instance in \cite[pp.323-329]%

565: {Binmore}.

566: \end{proof}

567: 

568: Now we can easily prove the existence of consistent truth value assignments.

569: 

570: \begin{proposition}

571: \label{cnt0303}If the implementations of $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$ are,

572: respectively, a continuous t-conorm, a continuous t-norm and a continuous

573: negation, then (\ref{eq0207})\ has at least one solution $\overline{x}=\left(

574: \overline{x}_{1},\overline{x}_{2},...,\overline{x}_{M}\right)  ^{T}\in\left[

575: 0,1\right]  ^{M}$.

576: \end{proposition}

577: 

578: \begin{proof}

579: We define the vector function $f\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  \ $as

580: follows:

581: \[

582: f\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  =\left(  f_{1}\left(  x_{1}%

583: ,x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  ,f_{2}\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)

584: ,...,f_{M}\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  \right)  ^{T}%

585: \]

586: where (for $m\in\left\{  1,2,...,M\right\}  $) $f_{m}\left(  x_{1}%

587: ,x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  $ is the function appearing in (\ref{eq0207}). Since

588: $f_{m}\left(  x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}\right)  $ computes a truth value, we have

589: $f_{m}:\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}\rightarrow\left[  0,1\right]  $ and hence

590: $f:\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}\rightarrow\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$ . Furthermore,

591: by Proposition \ref{cnt0301} each $f_{m}$ is a continuous function and so $f$

592: is also a continuous function. Now we can apply Proposition \ref{cnt0302} with

593: $X=\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$.

594: \end{proof}

595: 

596: When we use Boolean truth value assessments, we can prove an additional result

597: about consistent truth value assignments.

598: 

599: \begin{proposition}

600: \label{cnt0304}Suppose that in (\ref{eq0205}) $D_{1},D_{2},...,D_{M}%

601: \in\widetilde{\mathbf{S}}_{2}$ and the implementations of $\vee,\wedge

602: ,^{\prime}$ are, respectively, max, min and the standard negation. Then

603: (\ref{eq0207}) admits the solution $\left(  1/2,1/2,...,1/2\right)  ^{T}$.

604: \end{proposition}

605: 

606: \begin{proof}

607: Take any $m\in\left\{  1,2,...,M\right\}  $; then $F_{m}\left(  A_{1}%

608: ,A_{2},...,A_{M}\right)  $ is a combination (through $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$)

609: of a finite number of elements $C_{1},C_{2},...,C_{L}\in\widetilde{\mathbf{V}%

610: }_{2}$. Take any $C_{l}$ (with $l\in\left\{  1,2,...,L\right\}  $); it has the

611: form

612: \begin{equation}

613: C_{l}=\text{``Tr}\left(  B_{l}\right)  =b_{l}\text{''} \label{eaq0301}%

614: \end{equation}

615: where $B_{l}\in\mathbf{S}_{2}$ and $b_{l}\in\left\{  0,1\right\}  $. The

616: corresponding numerical term will have the form

617: \begin{equation}

618: \text{Tr}\left(  C_{l}\right)  =1-\left|  \text{Tr}\left(  B_{l}\right)

619: -b_{l}\right|  . \label{eq0302}%

620: \end{equation}

621: or

622: \begin{equation}

623: z_{l}=1-\left|  y_{l}-b_{l}\right|  \label{eq0303}%

624: \end{equation}

625: where $y_{l}=$Tr$\left(  B_{l}\right)  $ and $z_{l}=$Tr$\left(  C_{l}\right)

626: $. Now, $y_{l}$ will be a finite combination of $x_{1}$, ..., $x_{M}$ through

627: max, min and negation operators, hence when $x_{1}$= $x_{2}$=$...$= $x_{M}$=

628: $1/2$ we also get $y_{l}=1/2$. Then, for $b_{l}\in\left\{  0,1\right\}  $ we

629: also get from (\ref{eq0303}) that $z_{l}=1/2.$

630: 

631: Hence every term appearing in $f_{m}\left(  1/2,1/2,...,1/2\right)  $ (the

632: numerical version of $F_{m}\left(  A_{1},A_{2},...,A_{M}\right)  $) will be

633: equal to 1/2. Since these terms will be combined with max, min and negation

634: operators it follows that $f_{m}\left(  1/2,1/2,...,1/2\right)  =1/2$ and this

635: satisfies the $m$-th truth value equation:

636: \begin{equation}

637: x_{m}=\frac{1}{2}=f_{m}\left(  1/2,1/2,...,1/2\right)  . \label{eq0304}%

638: \end{equation}

639: Since (\ref{eq0304})\ holds for every $m\in\left\{  1,2,..,M\right\}  $, it

640: follows that (\ref{eq0207}) admits the solution $\left(

641: 1/2,1/2,...,1/2\right)  ^{T}$.

642: \end{proof}

643: 

644: \subsection{Discussion}

645: 

646: \label{sec0303}

647: 

648: We have seen that the assignment of consistent truth values to a collection of

649: self-referential propositions can be reduced to solving the system of

650: (algebraic) truth value equations. Furthermore, Proposition \ref{cnt0303}

651: shows that, subject to some mild continuity conditions, the truth value

652: equations admit at least one solution.

653: 

654: Proposition \ref{cnt0303} indicates that the Liar and related self referential

655: collections cease to be paradoxical in the context of fuzzy logic. From the

656: mathematical point of view the situation is rather straightforward. A system

657: of truth value equations may have no solution in $\left\{  0,1\right\}  ^{M}$;

658: by expanding to $\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$ the set in which we seek solutions

659: we can guarantee that the system \emph{always} has at least one solution. Of

660: course, this result is achieved at the price of admitting fuzzy solutions,

661: i.e. truth values which fall short of certainty.

662: 

663: Next, let us briefly compare explicit and implicit truth value assignment.

664: Explicit assignment is straightforward: starting with the initial (and more or

665: less arbitrary) choice of truth values for the 1st level variables, the truth

666: values of 1st and 2nd level sentences are uniquely determined. If initial

667: truth values were restricted to be either 0 or 1, then the initial choice

668: would essentially be a choice of axioms, i.e. the assertion of certain

669: propositions (or their negations); choosing truth values in $\left[

670: 0,1\right]  $ can be seen as a ``\emph{generalized axiomatization}''.

671: Generally, in implicit truth value assignment the truth values of 1st and 2nd

672: level sentences are not uniquely determined; rather a number of possible

673: consistent truth values are obtained. There are of course cases (examples will

674: be presented in the Appendix) where there is a single consistent truth value

675: assignment. One is tempted to remark that in such cases the collection of

676: self-referential sentences is equipped with an \emph{implicit axiomatization}.

677: 

678: Let us now return to the system of truth value equations. We have established

679: that it always has a solution; but many additional questions can be asked

680: about it. Let us list a few such questions\footnote{We make no attempt to

681: \emph{answer }these questions in the current paper; they will be the subject

682: of future research.}.

683: 

684: \begin{enumerate}

685: \item Under what conditions does (\ref{eq0207}) possess a unique solution?

686: 

687: \item Are some solutions ``better'' than other? For instance, solutions in the

688: interior of the hypercube $\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$ are ``fuzzier'' than

689: solutions on the boundary, which in turn are fuzzier than solutions on the

690: vertices. What are existence and uniqueness conditions for vertex or boundary solutions?

691: 

692: \item What is the structure of the set of solutions? For instance:

693: 

694: \begin{enumerate}

695: \item are there conditions under which it is a vector space?\ 

696: 

697: \item what is its dimension (vector space dimension, Hausdorff dimension etc.)?

698: 

699: \item is it equipped with a ``natural'' order? is it a lattice?

700: \end{enumerate}

701: 

702: \item Assuming that some of the above properties are established, are they

703: invariant under different implementations of $\vee,\wedge,^{\prime}$ and/ or

704: the function Tr$\left(  \cdot\right)  $?

705: \end{enumerate}

706: 

707: One can also ask computationally oriented questions; the most obvious one is:

708: ``how to solve the truth value equations?''. There is a large number of root

709: finding algorithms that can be used to this end and we will discuss some of

710: them in the next section. However, we believe it is useful to distinguish

711: between properties of the truth value equations (such as the properties listed

712: above)\ and algorithm properties. We will further discuss this distinction in

713: Section \ref{sec0404} \footnote{Note that in our formulation the numbers of

714: unknowns and equations are both equal to $M$. This is a natural consequence of

715: the formulation, since both the unknowns and equations are corresponded to the

716: original $M$ self-referential sentences. From the mathematical point of view,

717: since every variable is associated to an equation of the form \ $x_{m}%

718: =f_{m}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  $, the number of variables \emph{must}

719: equal the number of equations. Of course, the $m$-th function $f_{m}$ will

720: generally \emph{not} depend on all of $x_{1},...,x_{M}$.

721: \par

722: One could also consider more complicated situations, for instance a collection

723: of $M$ sentences which can be separated into two groups of sizes $M_{1}$ and

724: $M_{2}$(with $M_{1}+M_{2}=M$) having the following property: the sentences of

725: the first group talk only about this group, while the sentences of the second

726: group talk about both groups. This is a self-referential collection which

727: contains a \emph{closed} self-referential sub-collection (namely the first

728: group). The sub-collection corresponds to a smaller system of truth value

729: equations; the solutions obtained from this sub-system of $M_{1}$ equations

730: will in general be different from the ones obtained from the original system

731: of $M$ equations.

732: \par

733: Another possibility is to consider a collection of $N$ sentences for which

734: truth values are given and fixed and then a second collection of $M$ sentences

735: which talk about themselves and the first collection of sentences. This still

736: results in a set of $M$ equations which involve $M$ unknown truth values

737: $x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M}$ and $N$ fixed truth values (call them

738: \emph{parameters}) $z_{1},z_{2},...,z_{N}$. Our Proposition \ref{cnt0303}

739: still applies and guarantees the existence of a consistent truth value

740: solution $(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{M})^{T}$ for every choice of $z_{1}%

741: ,z_{2},...,z_{N}$.}.

742: 

743: \section{Computational Issues}

744: 

745: \label{sec04}

746: 

747: We now discuss a number of algorithms which can be used to solve the truth

748: value equations.

749: 

750: \subsection{Root Finding}

751: 

752: \label{sec0401}

753: 

754: Probably the most popular method for solving systems of nonlinear equations is

755: the iterative Newton-Raphson algorithm. A description and analysis can be

756: found in many numerical analysis textbooks (e.g. \cite{Numerit}). Using

757: \[

758: x=\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  ^{T},

759: \]

760: let us rewrite the truth value equations (\ref{eq0207}) as follows. Define

761: (for $m\in\left\{  1,2,...,M\right\}  $):

762: \[

763: h_{m}\left(  x\right)  =x_{m}-f_{m}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)

764: \]

765: and

766: \[

767: h\left(  x\right)  =\left(  h_{1}\left(  x\right)  ,...,h_{M}\left(  x\right)

768: \right)  ^{T}.

769: \]

770: Then the truth value equations (\ref{eq0207}) are equivalent to%

771: 

772: \[

773: h\left(  x\right)  =0.

774: \]

775: Let us define a time varying vector

776: \[

777: x\left(  t\right)  =\left(  x_{1}\left(  t\right)  ,...,x_{M}\left(  t\right)

778: \right)  ^{T};

779: \]

780: then the Newton-Raphson method consists in the iteration ($t=0,1,...$):

781: \begin{equation}

782: x\left(  t+1\right)  =x\left(  t\right)  -\left[  G\left(  x\left(  t\right)

783: \right)  \right]  ^{-1}\cdot h\left(  x\left(  t\right)  \right)

784: \label{eq0406}%

785: \end{equation}

786: with

787: \[

788: G\left(  x\right)  =\left(

789: \begin{array}

790: [c]{cccc}%

791: \frac{\partial h_{1}}{\partial x_{1}} & \frac{\partial h_{1}}{\partial x_{2}}

792: & .. & \frac{\partial h_{1}}{\partial x_{M}}\\

793: \frac{\partial h_{2}}{\partial x_{1}} & \frac{\partial h_{2}}{\partial x_{2}}

794: & ... & \frac{\partial h_{2}}{\partial x_{M}}\\

795: ... & ... & ... & ...\\

796: \frac{\partial h_{M}}{\partial x_{1}} & \frac{\partial h_{M}}{\partial x_{2}}

797: & ... & \frac{\partial h_{M}}{\partial x_{M}}%

798: \end{array}

799: \right)  .

800: \]

801: Depending on the choice of t-norms and t-conorms, the partial derivatives of

802: $h_{1}$,..., $h_{M}$ may be undefined at some points of $\left[  0,1\right]

803: ^{M}$; however at such points $G\left(  x\right)  $ can be approximated by a

804: differentiable function.

805: 

806: It is usually stated in textbooks that the Newton-Raphson algorithm will

807: converge to a solution $\overline{x}$ if it starts with $x\left(  0\right)  $

808: ``suficiently close to $\overline{x}$''. But this statement needs some clarifications.

809: 

810: A \emph{fixed point }of (\ref{eq0406}) is a point $\overline{x}$ which has the

811: following property: if for some $t$ we have $x\left(  t\right)  =\overline{x}%

812: $, then for $s=1,2,...$ we have $x\left(  t+s\right)  =x\left(  t\right)  $.

813: For this to hold it is necessary and sufficient that

814: \begin{equation}

815: \left[  G\left(  \overline{x}\right)  \right]  ^{-1}\cdot h\left(

816: \overline{x}\right)  =0. \label{eq0409}%

817: \end{equation}

818: It is clear from (\ref{eq0409})\ that every solution $\overline{x}$ of

819: (\ref{eq0207}) is a fixed point of (\ref{eq0406}) but the converse is not

820: necessarily true, i.e. (\ref{eq0406}) may have fixed points which are not

821: solutions of (\ref{eq0207}). Furthermore, a fixed point is called \emph{stable

822: }if

823: \[

824: \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x\left(  t\right)  =\overline{x}.

825: \]

826: for every choice of $x\left(  0\right)  $ ``sufficiently close'' to

827: $\overline{x}$; otherwise it is called \emph{unstable}. The iteration of

828: (\ref{eq0406}) can, by definition, converge only to stable fixed points, i.e.

829: some solutions of (\ref{eq0207}) cannot be obtained because they are unstable

830: fixed points.

831: 

832: There is an additional possibility: (\ref{eq0406}) may converge to a solution

833: of (\ref{eq0207}) which lies outside of $\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$. This

834: problem can be addressed by the following modification of (\ref{eq0406}):

835: 

836: \begin{enumerate}

837: \item if, for some $t$ and $m,$ (\ref{eq0406}) gives $x_{m}\left(  t\right)

838: >1$, then set $x_{m}\left(  t\right)  =1$;

839: 

840: \item if, for some $t$ and $m,$ (\ref{eq0406}) gives $x_{m}\left(  t\right)

841: <0$, then set $x_{m}\left(  t\right)  =0$.

842: \end{enumerate}

843: 

844: In conclusion, the Newton-Raphson algorithm may fail to find a consistent

845: truth value assignment for several reasons:

846: 

847: \begin{enumerate}

848: \item the algorithm may fail to converge;

849: 

850: \item it may converge to a value which does not solve (\ref{eq0207}) or lies

851: outside of $\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$;

852: 

853: \item it may miss a solution which is an unstable fixed point.

854: \end{enumerate}

855: 

856: Furthermore, there is no obvious way in which to obtain \emph{all} the

857: solutions of (\ref{eq0207}) using (\ref{eq0406})\footnote{In fact this remark

858: holds not only for Newton-Raphson, but for all numerical root finding

859: algorithms of which we are aware.}.

860: 

861: However, as a practical matter, the numerical experiments of the Appendix

862: indicate that (\ref{eq0406}) generally converges to a consistent truth value

863: assignment, i.e. a solution of (\ref{eq0207}) belonging to $\left[

864: 0,1\right]  ^{M}$.

865: 

866: \subsection{Inconsistency Minimization}

867: 

868: \label{sec0403}

869: 

870: Root finding can also be formulated (in a standard manner) as a minimization

871: problem. Let us apply this approach to truth value assignment. We write the

872: following \emph{inconsistency }function

873: \begin{equation}

874: J\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  =\sum_{m=1}^{M}\left(  x_{m}-f_{m}\left(

875: x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  \right)  ^{2}. \label{eq0421}%

876: \end{equation}

877: Note that $J\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  $ is a reasonable measure of the

878: \emph{inaccuracy} in satisfying the truth value equations. For every choice of

879: $\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  ^{T}$, $J$ takes a nonnegative value; every

880: solution of (\ref{eq0207}) yields a global minimum of $J$. An intuitive

881: interpretation of (\ref{eq0421}) goes as follows: $\left(  x_{m}-f_{m}\left(

882: x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  \right)  ^{2}$ is the inconsistency of the $m$-th

883: sentence and $\sum_{m=1}^{M}\left(  x_{m}-f_{m}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)

884: \right)  ^{2}$ is the \emph{total }inconsistency of the self-referential

885: collection. From Proposition \ref{cnt0303} we know that there is at least one

886: consistent truth value assignment, i.e. a truth value assignment of zero inconsistency.

887: 

888: There is a vast number of minimization algorithms; indeed the ``standard''

889: sequential reasoning of classical Aristotelian logic can be understood as a

890: simplistic inconsistency minimization algorithm which attempts to select the

891: optimizing value of one variable at a time.

892: 

893: In the experiments reported in the Appendix we will use another simple

894: algorithm, namely \emph{steepest descent minimization}. This consists of the

895: following iteration (for $t=1,2,...$):

896: \begin{equation}

897: x\left(  t+1\right)  =x\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\frac{\partial J}{\partial x}.

898: \label{eq0422}%

899: \end{equation}

900: The term $\frac{\partial J}{\partial x}$ in (\ref{eq0422}) is the gradient of

901: $J$ with respect to $x$; at points where $J$ is non-differentiable, similarly

902: to the Newton-Raphson case, we can use an appropriate approximation by a

903: differentiable function.

904: 

905: For small enough $k$ every step of (\ref{eq0422})\ yields a decrease of $J$.

906: Hence (\ref{eq0422})\ will at least converge to the neighborhood of a local

907: minimum of $J$; however this is not enough to guarantee that (\ref{eq0207}%

908: )\ is satisfied. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that $x\left(  t\right)  $

909: as given by (\ref{eq0422}) will always belong to $\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$.

910: However, note that in place of steepest descent one could use a more

911: sophisticated, \emph{constrained} optimization algorithm to minimize some

912: appropriate function of $\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  ^{T}$ under the

913: constraints of zero inconsistency and staying in $\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$.

914: 

915: Let us also note that the ``inconsistency minimization'' approach is somewhat

916: related to connectionist cognitive models and could conceivably be used by

917: actual human reasoners. However, we are not particularly concerned about the

918: ``psychological plausibility'' of our approach, neither do we propose it as a

919: description of actual human reasoning.

920: 

921: \subsection{A Control-Theoretic Algorithm}

922: 

923: \label{sec0402}

924: 

925: Finally, inspired from control theory, we propose a root-finding algorithm

926: which can be summarized by the following equation:

927: \begin{equation}

928: x\left(  t+1\right)  =x\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(  x\left(  t\right)

929: -f\left(  x_{1}\left(  t\right)  ,...,x_{M}\left(  t\right)  \right)  \right)

930: \label{eq0411}%

931: \end{equation}

932: The motivation for (\ref{eq0411}) can be explained as follows. Choose any

933: $m\in\left\{  1,2,...,M\right\}  $. From (\ref{eq0411}) we see that the

934: difference $x_{m}\left(  t+1\right)  -x_{m}\left(  t\right)  $ is equal to

935: $-k\cdot\left(  x_{m}\left(  t\right)  -f_{m}\left(  x_{1}\left(  t\right)

936: ,...,x_{M}\left(  t\right)  \right)  \right)  $. The following informal

937: convergence argument holds provided that $k$ is small and, consequently, the

938: change between $x_{m}\left(  t\right)  $ and $x_{m}\left(  t+1\right)  $ is

939: also small. In that case we can simply write $-k\cdot\left(  x_{m}%

940: -f_{m}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  \right)  $ and argue as follows. If

941: $x_{m}\left(  t\right)  $ is greater than $f_{m}\left(  x_{1}\left(  t\right)

942: ,...,x_{M}\left(  t\right)  \right)  $, then $x_{m}\left(  t+1\right)  $

943: becomes smaller than $x_{m}\left(  t\right)  $ and (assuming $k$ to be

944: sufficiently small) the difference $x_{m}-f_{m}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)

945: $ gets closer to zero. Similarly, if $x_{m}\left(  t\right)  $ is smaller than

946: $f_{m}\left(  x_{1}\left(  t\right)  ,...,x_{M}\left(  t\right)  \right)  $,

947: then $x_{m}\left(  t+1\right)  $ becomes larger than $x_{m}\left(  t\right)  $

948: increases and the difference $x_{m}-f_{m}\left(  x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  $

949: again gets closer to zero. Finally, if $\left(  x_{m}-f_{m}\left(

950: x_{1},...,x_{M}\right)  \right)  $ equals zero, then $x_{m}$ remains

951: unchanged. Hence, unlike Newton-Raphson and Steepest Descent, the fixed points

952: of (\ref{eq0411}) are exactly the solutions of the truth value equations.

953: However, it is not guaranteed that every fixed point is stable.

954: 

955: Eq.(\ref{eq0411}) is very similar to schemes used for the control of

956: \emph{servomechanisms}; standard control theoretic methods can be used to

957: investigate the behavior of $x\left(  t\right)  $, i.e. prove rigorously

958: existence of stable fixed points, convergence, boundedness etc. (for example,

959: these issues can be investigated by constructing a \emph{Lyapunov function} of

960: (\ref{eq0411})).

961: 

962: Similarly to steepest descent, the control theoretic algorithm has a certain

963: degreee of psychological plausibility. Namely, we can imagine a human reasoner

964: who adjusts truth values in small increments, according to the discrepancy

965: from the values predicted by the truth value equations.

966: 

967: \subsection{Dynamical Systems and Reasoning}

968: 

969: \label{sec0404}

970: 

971: As is the case for every iterative algorithm, the three algorithms presented

972: above can be viewed as \emph{dynamical systems}. Hence our approach is

973: somewhat similar to Grim's, since he also has modelled reasoning about

974: self-referential sentences as a dynamical system. There is of course an

975: important difference: Grim appears to be more interested in oscillatory and

976: chaotic behavior than in convergence to consistent truth values.

977: 

978: While we find the chaotic behavior of Grim's dynamical systems quite

979: interesting, we believe it is a rather secondary aspect of self-referential

980: collections. As we have already mentioned, we believe it is a property of a

981: particular algorithm rather than of the self-referential collection itself. Of

982: course, the algorithms proposed by Grim are somewhat special, in the sense

983: that they are inspired by human reasoning. However, the analogy should not be

984: drawn too far. It is rather unlikely that a human, when reasoning about

985: self-referential sentences, simulates chaotic dynamical systems with infinite

986: precision arithmetic. We do not bring this issue up to criticize Grim's

987: approach\footnote{Neither has Grim claimed that his model describes actual

988: human reasoning.}. Our point is that both Grim's dynamical systems and the

989: algorithms we have presented in Sections \ref{sec0401} -- \ref{sec0402} can be

990: seen as ``generalized reasoning systems''. In other words, despite our

991: previous remarks about psychological plausibility, the connection of such

992: systems to human reasoning is rather slender; however, they may reveal

993: interesting aspects of the \emph{mathematical }structure of self-referential collections.

994: 

995: \section{Bibliographic Remarks}

996: 

997: \label{sec06}

998: 

999: The literature on self-referential sentences is extensive and originates from

1000: many disciplines and points of view. Here we only present a small part of this

1001: literature: papers which we have found related to our investigation.

1002: 

1003: There is a vast philosophical literature on self-referential sentences and the

1004: related topic of \emph{truth}. This literature goes back to the ancient

1005: Greeks. Some pointers to the early literature can be found in the books

1006: \cite{Etchemendy,Martin1,Martin2,McGee}. These books also cover recent

1007: developments. Regarding the modern literature, we must list Tarski's

1008: fundamental paper on the \emph{truth predicate} \cite{Tarski}. Two other

1009: interesting early papers are \cite{Prior1,Prior2}. Important developments in

1010: the 70's were the concept of \emph{truth gaps} \cite{VanFras1,VanFras2} and

1011: Kripke's theory of truth \cite{Kripke}. Some important papers from the 80's

1012: and 90's are \cite{Goldstein,Gupta,Priest,Tappenden}.

1013: 

1014: Preliminary concepts of \emph{multi-valued logic} \cite{Rescher} have been

1015: used in connection to the Liar paradox already in the Middle Ages. The notion

1016: of truth gaps is also closely related to multi-valued logic, as is Skyrms'

1017: resolution of the Liar \cite{Skyrms}. The treatment of the Liar by the methods

1018: of fuzzy logic was a natural development. We have already mentioned Zadeh's

1019: paper \cite{Zadeh} which is, as far as we know, the first work dealing with

1020: the Liar in the context of fuzzy logic. We have also mentioned that Grim's

1021: work \cite{Grim1,Grim4,Grim3,Grim2} has been a major motivation for the

1022: current paper. In the fuzzy logic literature there is a considerable amount of

1023: work on self-referential sentences and the concept of truth (for example

1024: \cite{Hajek1,Hajek2}). These approaches fall within the mathematical logic

1025: tradition and are quite different from ours. But some logicians have also

1026: addressed computational issues which are related to our concerns. For example

1027: the concept of \emph{fuzzy} \emph{satisfiability} is addressed in

1028: \cite{Klement1,Klement2,Navara,Wang1}; on the same topic see \cite{Sudarsky}.

1029: 

1030: We believe that ideas from the areas of \emph{nonmonotonic reasoning }and

1031: \emph{belief revision} could yield fruitful insights on the Liar and related

1032: paradoxes, but we are not aware of any work in this direction. However the

1033: AGU\ axioms for belief revision (see for example \cite{AGU,Gardenfors1} and

1034: the book \cite{Gardenfors2}) appear to us very relevant to the study of

1035: logical paradoxes. Many of these issues are explored in \cite{GuptaBelnap};

1036: further interesting recent work includes \cite{Fuhrmann,Kyburg}. Also,

1037: self-reference is explicitly treated in \cite{Perlis1,Perlis2}.

1038: 

1039: We consider our approach to self-referential sentences only marginally related

1040: to psychology and cognitive science. However the so-called \emph{coherence}

1041: theory (or theories) of truth, a topic at the interface between psychology and

1042: philosophy, appears related to self-reference. Probably the best known

1043: coherence theory of truth is the one expounded by Thagard in \cite{Thagard1}

1044: and further elaborated in \cite{Thagard3,Thagard4} and several other

1045: publications. Thagard has also applied his theory to reasoning about a set of

1046: sentences, each pair of which may \emph{cohere} or \emph{incohere}. This

1047: theory can also be applied to self-referential sentences (though we are not

1048: aware of work exploring this connection). Thagard has given a computational

1049: formulation of his theory as a \emph{constraint satisfaction} problem

1050: \cite{Thagard3}; this formulation is rather similar to the inconsistency

1051: minimization approach we have presented in Section \ref{sec0403}. The

1052: relationship of coherence to \emph{belief networks }is discussed

1053: \cite{Thagard4}. It is interesting to note that Thagard has also presented a

1054: \emph{connectionist }formulation of the constraint satisfaction problem, which

1055: is related to several connectionist models of \emph{nonmonotonic reasoning

1056: }\cite{Ralescu,Pinkas,Raghu}. Finally, from our point of view, a particularly

1057: interesting paper is \cite{Schoch}, which proposes a fuzzy measure of

1058: coherence. The constraint satisfaction approach has also been applied in the

1059: context of \emph{cognitive dissonance }\cite{CogDis1,CogDis2}. It would be

1060: interesting to apply the theory of cognitive dissonance to reasoning about

1061: self-referential propositions, but as far as we know this has not been done

1062: until now.

1063: 

1064: Last but not least, the first chapter of Hofstadter's book \cite{Hofstadter}

1065: has a large collection of self-referential sentences.\ Some of these are of a

1066: quite different flavor from the Liar and are not easily formalized; however,

1067: we recommend the book to the reader for a more general view on the problem of self-reference.

1068: 

1069: \section{Conclusion}

1070: 

1071: \label{sec07}

1072: 

1073: In this paper we have presented a fuzzy-logic formulation which can describe a

1074: large family of collections of self-referential sentences; in particular it

1075: can accommodate the Liar, the inconsistent dualist, the consistent dualist and

1076: the \emph{strengthened }Liar (see the Appendix, Section \ref{secA07}). In our

1077: formulation, subject to some mild continuity conditions, every member of this

1078: family admits at least one consistent assignment of fuzzy truth values. Hence

1079: the main contribution of this paper is to expand Zadeh's analysis and to thus

1080: show that the Liar and related self referential collections cease to be

1081: paradoxical in the context of fuzzy logic by the simple expedient of expanding

1082: the set of possible solutions from $\left\{  0,1\right\}  ^{M}$ to $\left[

1083: 0,1\right]  ^{M}$. If we accept the price of admitting fuzzy solutions, i.e.

1084: truth values which fall short of certainty, then we can at one stroke resolve

1085: a large number of potential paradoxes.

1086: 

1087: Furthermore, we have presented several computational approaches to the problem

1088: of finding consistent truth values. In addition to the rather standard

1089: approaches of nonlinear equation solving by Newton-Raphson and by minimization

1090: we have presented an algorithm inspired by control theory which, as

1091: demonstrated by a number of numerical experiments, appears to strike a good

1092: balance between speed of execution, convergence and psychological plausibility

1093: (see also the Appendix, Section \ref{secA08}).

1094: 

1095: Many issues remain open; in the following paragraphs we list several groups of

1096: questions which we would like to investigate in the future.

1097: 

1098: First, there are mathematical questions regarding the \emph{solutions of the

1099: truth value equations}. Examples of such questions include existence and

1100: uniqueness of boundary and vertex solutions and invariance of the solutions

1101: under different implementations of the logical operators and the truth

1102: function Tr$\left(  \cdot\right)  $.\ Also, there are questions regarding the

1103: \emph{algorithmic }behavior, for instance the stability of a \ solution under

1104: a particular algorithm. The complete resolution of these questions appears to

1105: be a difficult problem. Perhaps a fruitful first step will be the study of a

1106: restricted family of self-referential collections (for example the study of

1107: self-referential \emph{Boolean }truth value assessments).

1108: 

1109: A second group of questions concerns \emph{optimization issues}. There is

1110: scope for experimentation with alternative implementations of the Tr$\left(

1111: \cdot\right)  $ function, alternative inconsistency functions (for example

1112: using absolute values rather than squares) and so on. We have also mentioned

1113: that truth value assignment could be formulated as \emph{constrained}

1114: optimization, i.e. as the minimization of some fuzziness criterion subject to

1115: zero inconsistency.

1116: 

1117: However, we believe that the most interesting variations of the optimization

1118: problem are the ones which attempt to address the issue of \emph{bounded

1119: rationality}. Whatever the attractions of infinite valued logic may \ be, we

1120: find rather implausible that humans reason with a continuum of truth values. A

1121: (perhaps small) step to increase the relevance of our approach to actual human

1122: reasoning would be to minimize inconsistency using a finite (and

1123: small)\ number of truth values. This is an intermdeiate step between the

1124: classical approach of searching for solutions in $\left\{  0,1\right\}  ^{M}$

1125: and the fuzzy logic approach of searching in $\left[  0,1\right]  ^{M}$. While

1126: the formulation of the problem is identical to the one we have presented here,

1127: a major difference is that now there is no guarantee for the existence of a

1128: zero inconsistency solution. Hence a number of mathematical questions arise,

1129: regarding the properties of the minima of the inconsistency function; from the

1130: computational point of view, the use of a finite set of truth values may

1131: require the use of entirely different optimization algorithms.

1132: 

1133: Let us also note that there are other possibilities for addressing the issue

1134: of bounded rationality, for example the use of interval-valued fuzzy sets, the

1135: description of truth values in terms of tolerance classes etc. These issues

1136: require further research.

1137: 

1138: Finally, we are very interested in the \emph{coherence }approach to

1139: self-referential sentences. Since self-referential sentences make claims about

1140: each other's truth values it is rather straightforward to setup a network with

1141: one node per sentence and connections which are either reinforcing or

1142: inhbiting (depending on what each sentence says about each other). We have

1143: performed preliminary experiments based on a Boltzmann machine formulation of

1144: the problem; we use a variation of Schoch's fuzzy coherence measure

1145: \cite{Schoch}. These results will be reported in a future publication.

1146: 

1147: \begin{thebibliography}{9}                                                                                                %

1148: 

1149: \bibitem {AGU}C. Alchourron, P. Gardenfors and D. Mackinson. ``On the logic of

1150: theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions''. \emph{J. of

1151: Symb. Logic, }vol.50, pp.510-530, 1985.

1152: 

1153: \bibitem {Etchemendy}J. Barwise and J. Etchemendy. \emph{The Liar}. Oxford

1154: Univ. Press 1987.

1155: 

1156: \bibitem {Binmore}K. Binmore. \emph{Fun and Games}, Heath and Company, 1992.

1157: 

1158: \bibitem {Klement1}D. Butnariu, E.P. Klement and S. Zafrany. ``On triangular

1159: norm-based propositional fuzzy logics''. \emph{Fuzzy Sets and Systems,

1160: }vol.69, pp.241-255, 1995.

1161: 

1162: \bibitem {CogDis1}L. Festinger. \emph{A theory of cognitive dissonance}. 1957,

1163: Stanford Univ. Press.

1164: 

1165: \bibitem {Fuhrmann}A. Fuhrmann. ``Theory contraction through base

1166: contraction''. \emph{J. of Phil. Logic, }vol.20, pp.175-203, 1991.

1167: 

1168: \bibitem {Gardenfors1}P. Gardenfors. ``The dynamics of belief systems:

1169: foundations vs. coherence theories''. \emph{Rev. International de Philosophie,

1170: }vol.172, pp.24-46, 1990.

1171: 

1172: \bibitem {Gardenfors2}P. Gardenfors. \emph{Belief Revision}. Cambridge Univ.

1173: Press,\emph{\ }1992.

1174: 

1175: \bibitem {Goldstein}L. Goldstein. `` `This statement is not true' is not

1176: true''. \emph{Analysis, }vol.52, pp.1-5, 1992.

1177: 

1178: \bibitem {Grim1}P. Grim. ``Self-reference and chaos in fuzzy logic`''.

1179: \emph{IEEE Trans. on FS,} vol.1, pp.237-253, 1993.

1180: 

1181: \bibitem {Gupta}A. Gupta. ``Truth and paradox''. \emph{J. of Phil. Logic,

1182: }vol.11, pp.1-60, 1982.

1183: 

1184: \bibitem {GuptaBelnap}A. Gupta and N. Belnap. \emph{The Revision Theory of

1185: Truth}. MIT Press, 1993.

1186: 

1187: \bibitem {Hajek1}P. Hajek and J. Shepherdson. ``A note on the notion of truth

1188: in fuzzy logic''. \emph{An. Of Pure and Appl. Logic}, vol.109, pp.65-69, 2001.

1189: 

1190: \bibitem {Hajek2}P. Hajek, J. Paris and J. Shepherdson. ``The liar paradox and

1191: fuzzy logic''. \emph{Preprint}, 1998.

1192: 

1193: \bibitem {Hofstadter}D. Hofstadter. \emph{Metamagical Themas}. Basic Books, 1985.

1194: 

1195: \bibitem {Klement2}E.P. Klement and M. Navara. ``A survey of different

1196: triangular norm-based fuzzy logics''. \emph{Fuzzy Sets and Systems, }vol.101,

1197: pp.241-251, 1999.

1198: 

1199: \bibitem {Klir}G.I. Klir and B. Yuan. \emph{Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory

1200: and Applications}. Prentice Hall, 1995.

1201: 

1202: \bibitem {Numerit}N.V. Kopchenova and I.A. Maron. \emph{Computational

1203: Mathematics}. MIR, 1975.

1204: 

1205: \bibitem {Kripke}S. Kripke. ``Outline of a theory of truth''. \emph{J. of

1206: Philosophy, }vol.72, pp.690-716, 1975.

1207: 

1208: \bibitem {Kyburg}H.E. Kyburg. ``Rational belief''. \emph{Brain and Behav.

1209: Sci.,} vol.65, pp.231-273, 1983.

1210: 

1211: \bibitem {Grim4}G. Mar and P. Grim. ``Pattern and chaos: new images in the

1212: semantics of paradox''. \emph{Nous, }vol.25, pp.659-693, 1991.

1213: 

1214: \bibitem {Grim3}G. Mar and P. St. Denis. ``What the liar taught Achilles''.

1215: \emph{J. of Phil. Logic, }vol.28, pp.29-46, 1999.

1216: 

1217: \bibitem {Martin1}R.L. Martin. \emph{The paradox of the Liar},

1218: Ridgeview,\emph{\ }1970.

1219: 

1220: \bibitem {Martin2}R.L. Martin. \emph{Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar

1221: Paradox. }Oxford Univ. Press, 1984.

1222: 

1223: \bibitem {McGee}V. McGee. \emph{Truth, vagueness and paradox}. Hackett, 1991.

1224: 

1225: \bibitem {Ralescu}H. Narazaki and A.L. Ralescu. ``A connectionist approach for

1226: rule-based inference using an improved relaxation method''. \emph{IEEE Trans.

1227: on NN, }vol.3, pp.741-751, 1992.

1228: 

1229: \bibitem {Navara}M. Navara. ``Satisfiability in fuzzy logics''.

1230: \emph{Preprint}, 2000.

1231: 

1232: \bibitem {Nguyen}H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker. \emph{A First Course in Fuzzy

1233: Logic}, 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, 1999.

1234: 

1235: \bibitem {Perlis1}D. Perlis. ``Languages with self reference I: foundations''.

1236: \emph{Art. Int}., vol.25, pp.301-322, 1985.

1237: 

1238: \bibitem {Perlis2}D. Perlis. ``Languages with self reference II: knowledge,

1239: belief and modality''. \emph{Art. Int}., vol.34, pp.179-212, 1988.

1240: 

1241: \bibitem {Pinkas}G. Pinkas. ``Symmetric neural networks and propositional

1242: logic satisfiability''. \emph{Neural Comp.,} vol.3, pp.282-291, 1991.

1243: 

1244: \bibitem {Priest}G. Priest. ``The logic of paradox revisited''. \emph{J. of

1245: Phil. Logic, }vol.13, pp.153-179, 1984.

1246: 

1247: \bibitem {Prior1}A. Prior. ``Epimenides the Cretan''. \emph{J. of Symb. Logic,

1248: }vol.23, pp.261-266, 1958.

1249: 

1250: \bibitem {Prior2}A. Prior. ``On a family of paradoxes''. \emph{Notre Dame J.

1251: of Formal Logic, }vol.2, pp.16-32, 1961.

1252: 

1253: \bibitem {Raghu}P.S. Raghuvanshi and S. Kumar. ``Bipolar radial basis function

1254: inferencing networks''. \emph{Neurocomputing, }vol.14, pp.195-204, 1997.

1255: 

1256: \bibitem {Rescher}N. Rescher. \emph{Multi-valued Logic}. McGraw-Hill,\emph{\ }1969.

1257: 

1258: \bibitem {Rieger}A. Rieger. ``The liar, the strengthened liar and bivalence''.

1259: \emph{Erkenntnis, }vol.54, pp.195-203, 2001.

1260: 

1261: \bibitem {Schoch}D. Schoch. ``A fuzzy measure for explanatory coherence''.

1262: \emph{Synthese, }vol.122, pp.291-311, 2000.

1263: 

1264: \bibitem {CogDis2}T.R. Schultz and M.R. Lepper. ``Cognitive dissonance

1265: reduction as constraint satisfaction''. \emph{Psych. Rev.,} vol.103,

1266: pp.219-240, 1996.

1267: 

1268: \bibitem {Skyrms}B. Skyrms. ``Return of the liar: three-valued logic and the

1269: concept of truth''. \emph{Amer. Philosoph. Quart., }vol.7, pp.153-161, 1970.

1270: 

1271: \bibitem {Grim2}P. St. Denis and P. Grim. ``Fractal images of formal

1272: systems''. \emph{J. of Phil. Logic, }vol.26, pp.181-222, 1997.

1273: 

1274: \bibitem {Sudarsky}S. Sudarsky. ``Fuzzy satisfiability''. \emph{Preprint}, 1995.

1275: 

1276: \bibitem {Tappenden}J. Tappenden. ``The liar and sorites paradoxes: toward a

1277: unified treatment''. \emph{J. of Philosophy, }vol.90, pp.551-577, 1993.

1278: 

1279: \bibitem {Tarski}A. Tarski. ``Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den formalisierten

1280: Sprachen''. \emph{Studien Philosophica}, vol. 1, pp.261-405, 1935.

1281: 

1282: \bibitem {Thagard1}P. Thagard. ``Explanatory Coherence''. \emph{Beh. Brain

1283: Sci.,} vol.12, pp.435-467, 1989.

1284: 

1285: \bibitem {Thagard3}P. Thagard and K. Verbeugt. ``Coherence as constraint

1286: satisfaction''. \emph{Cog. Sci., }vol.22, pp.1-24, 1998.

1287: 

1288: \bibitem {Thagard4}P. Thagard. ``Probabilistic networks and explanatory

1289: coherence''. \emph{Preprint}, 1998.

1290: 

1291: \bibitem {VanFras1}B. van Fraassen. ``Singular terms, truth-value gaps and

1292: free logic''. \emph{J. of Philosophy, }vol.63, pp.481-495, 1966.

1293: 

1294: \bibitem {VanFras2}B. van Fraassen. ``Presupposition, implication and

1295: self-reference''. \emph{J. of Philosophy, }vol.65, pp.136-152, 1968.

1296: 

1297: \bibitem {Wang1}S.M. Wang, B.S. Wang and G.J. Wang. ``A triangular norm-based

1298: propositional fuzzy logic''. \emph{Fuzzy Sets and Systems, }vol.136, pp.55-70, 2003.

1299: 

1300: \bibitem {Zadeh}L.A. Zadeh. ``Liar's paradox and truth-qualification

1301: principle''. ERL Memo M79/34, 1979.

1302: \end{thebibliography}

1303: 

1304: \bigskip\newpage

1305: 

1306: \appendix    

1307: 

1308: \section{Appendix: Examples and Experiments}

1309: 

1310: \label{sec05}

1311: 

1312: In this appendix we present several examples of our formulation of

1313: self-referential collections. Whenever possible, we solve the truth value

1314: equations analytically; in addition we apply the three algorithms of Section

1315: \ref{sec04} to numerically compute truth values.

1316: 

1317: \subsection{Example 1: The Liar}

1318: 

1319: \label{sec0500}

1320: 

1321: We present our first example very briefly since it has already been addressed

1322: by Zadeh and several other authors. The Liar sentence is

1323: \[

1324: A=\text{``}A\text{ is false''.}%

1325: \]

1326: According to our previous remarks, we define

1327: \[

1328: C=\text{``Tr}\left(  A\right)  \text{=0''}%

1329: \]

1330: and then set

1331: \[

1332: A=C

1333: \]

1334: which implies

1335: \begin{align}

1336: \text{Tr}\left(  A\right)   &  =\text{Tr}\left(  C\right)  \Rightarrow

1337: \nonumber\\

1338: \text{Tr}\left(  A\right)   &  =1-\left|  \text{Tr}\left(  A\right)

1339: -0\right|  \Rightarrow\nonumber\\

1340: x  &  =1-\left|  x-0\right|  \Rightarrow\nonumber\\

1341: x  &  =1-x \label{eq0502}%

1342: \end{align}

1343: where we have set $x=$Tr$\left(  A\right)  $. (\ref{eq0502}) is the truth

1344: value equation and it has the unique solution $x=1/2$.

1345: 

1346: \subsection{Example 2: The Inconsistent Dualist}

1347: 

1348: \label{sec0501}

1349: 

1350: Our next example is the inconsistent dualist:

1351: \begin{align}

1352: A_{1}  &  :\text{``}A_{2}\text{ is true''}\label{eq0511}\\

1353: A_{2}  &  :\text{``}A_{1}\text{ is false''.} \label{eq0512}%

1354: \end{align}

1355: 

1356: In this case the 1st level elementary sentences are $\mathbf{V}_{1}=\left\{

1357: A_{1},A_{2}\right\}  $. We will use two 2nd level elementary sentences

1358: \begin{align*}

1359: C_{1}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)  =1\text{''}\\

1360: C_{2}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  =0\text{''.}%

1361: \end{align*}

1362: Note that $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are Boolean elementary truth value assessments,

1363: i.e. $C_{1},C_{2}\in\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{2}\subseteq\widetilde{\mathbf{S}%

1364: }_{2}$. The translation of (\ref{eq0511}), (\ref{eq0512}) consists in mapping

1365: $A_{1}$ to $C_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ to $C_{2}$; then we have the logical equations

1366: \begin{align*}

1367: A_{1}  &  =C_{1}\\

1368: A_{2}  &  =C_{2}%

1369: \end{align*}

1370: from which follows

1371: \begin{align*}

1372: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)   &  =\text{Tr}\left(  C_{1}\right)  =1-\left|

1373: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)  -1\right| \\

1374: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)   &  =\text{Tr}\left(  C_{2}\right)  =1-\left|

1375: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  -0\right|  .

1376: \end{align*}

1377: Substituting Tr$\left(  A_{m}\right)  $ $\ $with $x_{m}$ ($m=1,2$) we get

1378: \begin{align*}

1379: x_{1}  &  =1-\left|  x_{2}-1\right| \\

1380: x_{2}  &  =1-\left|  x_{1}-0\right|

1381: \end{align*}

1382: and, since $x_{1},x_{2}\in\left[  0,1\right]  $, we finally get the truth

1383: value equations

1384: \begin{align}

1385: x_{1}  &  =x_{2}\label{eq051a}\\

1386: x_{2}  &  =1-x_{1}. \label{eq051b}%

1387: \end{align}

1388: Obviously, eqs. (\ref{eq051a})--(\ref{eq051b})\ have the unique solution

1389: $\overline{x}=\left(  \overline{x}_{1},\overline{x}_{2}\right)  =\left(

1390: 1/2,1/2\right)  $.

1391: 

1392: The inconsistency function is

1393: \[

1394: J\left(  x_{1},x_{2}\right)  =\left(  x_{1}-x_{2}\right)  ^{2}+\left(

1395: x_{1}+x_{2}-1\right)  ^{2}%

1396: \]

1397: and has partial derivatives

1398: \begin{align*}

1399: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{1}}  &  =\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1}}\left(

1400: \left(  x_{1}-x_{2}\right)  ^{2}+\left(  x_{1}+x_{2}-1\right)  ^{2}\right)

1401: =\allowbreak4x_{1}-2\\

1402: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{2}}  &  =\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{2}}\left(

1403: \left(  x_{1}-x_{2}\right)  ^{2}+\left(  x_{1}+x_{2}-1\right)  ^{2}\right)

1404: =\allowbreak4x_{2}-2.

1405: \end{align*}

1406: Setting the partial derivatives equal to zero we obtain

1407: \begin{align}

1408: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{1}}  &  =\allowbreak4x_{1}-2=0\label{eq051i}\\

1409: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{2}}  &  =4x_{2}-2=0 \label{eq051j}%

1410: \end{align}

1411: and, obviously, eqs. (\ref{eq051i})--(\ref{eq051j}) have the unique solution

1412: $\overline{x}=\left(  \overline{x}_{1},\overline{x}_{2}\right)  =\left(

1413: 1/2,1/2\right)  $ which gives the unique truth value assignment of zero inconsistency.

1414: 

1415: Furthermore, using the steepest descent algorithm we obtain the the dynamical

1416: system

1417: \begin{align}

1418: x_{1}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1419: 4x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -2\right) \label{eq051g}\\

1420: x_{2}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1421: 4x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -2\right)  . \label{eq051f}%

1422: \end{align}

1423: This is a linear system which can be written in matrix notation as

1424: \[

1425: x\left(  t+1\right)  =Ax\left(  t\right)  +b

1426: \]

1427: with

1428: \[

1429: A=\left(

1430: \begin{array}

1431: [c]{cc}%

1432: 1-4k & 0\\

1433: 0 & 1-4k

1434: \end{array}

1435: \right)  ,\qquad b=\left(

1436: \begin{array}

1437: [c]{c}%

1438: 2k\\

1439: 2k

1440: \end{array}

1441: \right)

1442: \]

1443: $A$ has double eigenvalue: $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=1-4k$. We have (for

1444: $i=1,2$)

1445: \[

1446: \left|  \lambda_{i}\right|  =1-4k<1

1447: \]

1448: for sufficiently small $k$. Hence (\ref{eq051g})--(\ref{eq051f}) is stable.

1449: The unique fixed point $\overline{x}$ is obtained by solving

1450: \[

1451: x=Ax+b.

1452: \]

1453: The solution is $\overline{x}=\left(  1/2,1/2\right)  $. Because of stability

1454: we have for every $x\left(  0\right)  $ that

1455: \[

1456: \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x\left(  t\right)  =\overline{x}.

1457: \]

1458: 

1459: This result is verified by numerical simulation. Using $k=0.1$ and starting

1460: with random initial conditions we have performed several simulations of

1461: (\ref{eq051g})--(\ref{eq051f}). A typical run is illustrated in Figure 1.

1462: Specifically, Fig.1.a illustrates the evolution of the truth values

1463: $x_{1}\left(  t\right)  $ (solid line) and $x_{2}\left(  t\right)  $

1464: (dash-dotted line) as computed by the steepest descent minimization algorithm

1465: (\ref{eq051g})--(\ref{eq051f}) with $k=0.1$; Fig.1.b illustrates the

1466: corresponding evolution of inconsistency.

1467: 

1468: \begin{center}%

1469: \begin{tabular}

1470: [c]{cc}%

1471: \textbf{Fig. 1.a} & \textbf{Fig. 1.b}\\

1472: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig011.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1473: {\includegraphics{fig012.eps}}

1474: \end{tabular}

1475: \end{center}

1476: 

1477: \medskip

1478: 

1479: We observe that the algorithm gets to the neighborhood of the optimal truth

1480: values $\overline{x}$ in a few steps and thereafter oscillates around

1481: $\overline{x}$; note also that at equilbrium the algorithm yields an

1482: inconsistency value larger than zero. This behavior is related to the step

1483: size $k$. Using smaller step size we can decrease the amplitude of the

1484: oscillation and bring the inconsistency closer to zero, at the expense of

1485: slower convergence; a typical simulation with $k=0.01$ appears in Figure 2.

1486: Note that inconsistency is now a lot closer to zero.

1487: 

1488: \begin{center}%

1489: \begin{tabular}

1490: [c]{cc}%

1491: \textbf{Fig. 2.a} & \textbf{Fig. 2.b}\\

1492: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig021.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1493: {\includegraphics{fig022.eps}}

1494: \end{tabular}

1495: \end{center}

1496: 

1497: \medskip

1498: 

1499: Finally, using the control algorithm, we obtain the dynamical system

1500: \begin{align}

1501: x_{1}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1502: x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -x_{2}\left(  t\right)  \right) \label{eq051c}\\

1503: x_{2}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1504: x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -1+x_{1}\left(  t\right)  \right)  . \label{eq051d}%

1505: \end{align}

1506: This is a linear system which can be written in matrix notation as

1507: \[

1508: x\left(  t+1\right)  =Ax\left(  t\right)  +b

1509: \]

1510: with

1511: \[

1512: A=\left(

1513: \begin{array}

1514: [c]{cc}%

1515: 1-k & k\\

1516: -k & 1-k

1517: \end{array}

1518: \right)  ,\qquad b=\left(

1519: \begin{array}

1520: [c]{c}%

1521: 0\\

1522: k

1523: \end{array}

1524: \right)

1525: \]

1526: $A$ has eigenvalues: $\lambda_{1}=-k+1+ik$,\allowbreak\ $\lambda_{2}=-k+1-ik$.

1527: We have (for $i=1,2$)

1528: \[

1529: \left|  \lambda_{i}\right|  =\sqrt{1-2k+2k^{2}}<1

1530: \]

1531: for sufficiently small $k$. Hence (\ref{eq051c})--(\ref{eq051d})\ is stable.

1532: The unique fixed point $\overline{x}$ is obtained by solving

1533: \[

1534: x=Ax+b.

1535: \]

1536: The solution is $\overline{x}=\left(  1/2,1/2\right)  $. Because of stability

1537: we have for every $x\left(  0\right)  $ that

1538: \[

1539: \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}x\left(  t\right)  =\overline{x}.

1540: \]

1541: 

1542: This result is verified by numerical simulation. Using $k=0.1$ and starting

1543: with random initial conditions we have performed several simulations of

1544: (\ref{eq051c})--(\ref{eq051d}). A typical run is illustrated in Figure 3.

1545: Again, Fig.3.a illustrates the evolution of the truth values $x_{1}\left(

1546: t\right)  $ (solid line) and $x_{2}\left(  t\right)  $ (dash-dotted line) and

1547: Fig.3.b illustrates the corresponding inconsistency (as given by (\ref{eq0421})).

1548: 

1549: \begin{center}%

1550: \begin{tabular}

1551: [c]{cc}%

1552: \textbf{Fig. 3.a} & \textbf{Fig. 3.b}\\

1553: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig031.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1554: {\includegraphics{fig032.eps}}

1555: \end{tabular}

1556: \end{center}

1557: 

1558: \ We observe that the control algorithm locates the solution of the truth

1559: value equations with higher accuracy than the steepest descent method and

1560: almost as fast.

1561: 

1562: \subsection{Example 3:\ The Consistent Dualist}

1563: 

1564: \label{sec0502}

1565: 

1566: Our next example is the consistent dualist:

1567: \begin{align*}

1568: A_{1}  &  :\text{``}A_{2}\text{ is true''}\\

1569: A_{2}  &  :\text{``}A_{1}\text{ is true''.}%

1570: \end{align*}

1571: Again the 1st level elementary sentences are $\mathbf{V}_{1}=\left\{

1572: A_{1},A_{2}\right\}  $; the 2nd level elementary sentences are

1573: \begin{align*}

1574: C_{1}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)  =1\text{''}\\

1575: C_{2}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  =1\text{''}%

1576: \end{align*}

1577: which are Boolean elementary truth value assessments, i.e. $C_{1},C_{2}%

1578: \in\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{2}\subseteq\widetilde{\mathbf{S}}_{2}$. Setting

1579: \begin{align*}

1580: A_{1}  &  =C_{1}\\

1581: A_{2}  &  =C_{2}%

1582: \end{align*}

1583: we obtain

1584: \begin{align*}

1585: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)   &  =\text{Tr}\left(  C_{1}\right)  =1-\left|

1586: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)  -1\right| \\

1587: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)   &  =\text{Tr}\left(  C_{2}\right)  =1-\left|

1588: \text{Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  -1\right|

1589: \end{align*}

1590: and then the truth value equations

1591: \begin{align*}

1592: x_{1}  &  =1-\left|  x_{2}-1\right| \\

1593: x_{2}  &  =1-\left|  x_{1}-1\right|

1594: \end{align*}

1595: which can be written in simple form as

1596: \begin{align*}

1597: x_{1}  &  =x_{2}\\

1598: x_{2}  &  =x_{1}.

1599: \end{align*}

1600: Any vector of the form $\overline{x}=\left(  \beta,\beta\right)  $ ($\beta

1601: \in\left[  0,1\right]  $) is a solution; i.e. there is an infinite number of

1602: consistent truth value assignments including complete truth (Tr$\left(

1603: A_{1}\right)  =$Tr$\left(  A_{2}\right)  =1$) and complete falsity (Tr$\left(

1604: A_{1}\right)  =$Tr$\left(  A_{2}\right)  =0$); in accordance to Proposition

1605: \ref{cnt0304}, $\left(  1/2,1/2\right)  $ is also a solution.

1606: 

1607: The inconsistency function is

1608: \[

1609: J=\left(  x_{1}-x_{2}\right)  ^{2}+\left(  x_{1}-x_{2}\right)  ^{2}%

1610: \]

1611: and has partial derivatives

1612: \begin{align*}

1613: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{1}}  &  =\allowbreak4x_{1}-4x_{2}\\

1614: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{2}}  &  =4x_{2}-4x_{1}.

1615: \end{align*}

1616: Setting the partial derivatives equal to zero we obtain

1617: \begin{align}

1618: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{1}}  &  =\allowbreak4x_{1}-4x_{2}%

1619: =0\label{eq0521}\\

1620: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{2}}  &  =4x_{2}-4x_{1}=0 \label{eq0522}%

1621: \end{align}

1622: and it is immediate that (\ref{eq0521})--(\ref{eq0522}) has the family of

1623: solutions $x=\left(  \beta,\beta\right)  $, each of which gives zero

1624: inconsistency. Furthermore, using the steepest descent algorithm we obtain the

1625: linear dynamical system

1626: \begin{align}

1627: x_{1}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1628: 4x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -4x_{2}\left(  t\right)  \right) \label{eq0523}\\

1629: x_{2}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1630: 4x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -4x_{1}\left(  t\right)  \right)  \label{eq0524}%

1631: \end{align}

1632: which can be written in matrix notation as

1633: \[

1634: x\left(  t+1\right)  =Ax\left(  t\right)

1635: \]

1636: with

1637: \[

1638: A=\left(

1639: \begin{array}

1640: [c]{cc}%

1641: 1-4k & 4k\\

1642: 4k & 1-4k

1643: \end{array}

1644: \right)

1645: \]

1646: $A$ has eigenvalues: $\lambda_{1}=1,\allowbreak\lambda_{2}=1-8k$. We have

1647: \[

1648: \left|  \lambda_{1}\right|  =1\text{ and }\left|  \lambda_{2}\right|

1649: \sqrt{1-8k}<1

1650: \]

1651: hence (\ref{eq0523})--(\ref{eq0524})\ will generally be convergent, but will

1652: have oscillatory behavior for certain initial conditions. The fixed points are

1653: obtained by solving

1654: \[

1655: x=Ax.

1656: \]

1657: The family of solutions is $x=\left(  \beta,\beta\right)  $. These results are

1658: verified by numerical simulation. Using $k=0.1$ and starting with random

1659: initial conditions we have performed several simulations of (\ref{eq0523}%

1660: )--(\ref{eq0524}). Three typical runs are illustrated in Figures 4, 5 and 6;

1661: the left panels indicate the evolution of the truth values and the right

1662: panels illustrate the corresponding inconsistency. We observe that the actual

1663: equilibrium reached depends on the initial conditions.

1664: 

1665: \begin{center}%

1666: \begin{tabular}

1667: [c]{cc}%

1668: \textbf{Fig. 4.a} & \textbf{Fig. 4.b}\\

1669: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig041.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1670: {\includegraphics{fig042.eps}}

1671: \end{tabular}%

1672: 

1673: \begin{tabular}

1674: [c]{cc}%

1675: \textbf{Fig. 5.a} & \textbf{Fig. 5.b}\\

1676: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig051.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1677: {\includegraphics{fig052.eps}}

1678: \end{tabular}%

1679: 

1680: \begin{tabular}

1681: [c]{cc}%

1682: \textbf{Fig. 6.a} & \textbf{Fig. 6.b}\\

1683: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig061.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1684: {\includegraphics{fig062.eps}}

1685: \end{tabular}

1686: \end{center}

1687: 

1688: Finally, using the control algorithm, we obtain the dynamical system

1689: \begin{align}

1690: x_{1}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1691: x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -x_{2}\left(  t\right)  \right) \label{eq0525}\\

1692: x_{2}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1693: x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -x_{1}\left(  t\right)  \right)  . \label{eq0526}%

1694: \end{align}

1695: This is a linear system which can be written in matrix notation as

1696: \[

1697: x\left(  t+1\right)  =Ax\left(  t\right)

1698: \]

1699: with

1700: \[

1701: A=\left(

1702: \begin{array}

1703: [c]{cc}%

1704: 1-k & k\\

1705: k & 1-k

1706: \end{array}

1707: \right)

1708: \]

1709: $A$ has eigenvalues: $\lambda_{1}=1$,\allowbreak\ $\lambda_{2}=1-2k$. We have

1710: for sufficiently small $k$

1711: \[

1712: \left|  \lambda_{1}\right|  =1\text{ and }\left|  \lambda_{2}\right|

1713: \sqrt{1-2k}<1

1714: \]

1715: hence (\ref{eq0525})--(\ref{eq0526})\ can have oscillatory behavior (for

1716: certain initial conditions). Also, the fixed points of are obtained by

1717: solving

1718: \[

1719: x=Ax.

1720: \]

1721: The family of solutions is, as expected, $x=\left(  \beta,\beta\right)  .$ The

1722: results are verified by numerical simulation. Using $k=0.1$ and starting with

1723: random initial conditions we have performed several simulations of

1724: (\ref{eq0525})--(\ref{eq0526}). Typical runs are illustrated in Figures 7, 8,

1725: 9 (again, the left panels indicate the evolution of the truth values and the

1726: right panels illustrate the corresponding inconsistency).

1727: 

1728: \begin{center}%

1729: \begin{tabular}

1730: [c]{cc}%

1731: \textbf{Fig. 7.a} & \textbf{Fig. 7.b}\\

1732: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig071.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1733: {\includegraphics{fig072.eps}}

1734: \end{tabular}%

1735: 

1736: \begin{tabular}

1737: [c]{cc}%

1738: \textbf{Fig. 8.a} & \textbf{Fig. 8.b}\\

1739: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig081.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1740: {\includegraphics{fig082.eps}}

1741: \end{tabular}%

1742: 

1743: \begin{tabular}

1744: [c]{cc}%

1745: \textbf{Fig. 9.a} & \textbf{Fig. 9.b}\\

1746: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig091.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1747: {\includegraphics{fig092.eps}}

1748: \end{tabular}

1749: \end{center}

1750: 

1751: \subsection{Example 4}

1752: 

1753: \label{sec0503}

1754: 

1755: Our third example is somewhat more complicated but still involves only

1756: $\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}_{2}$ sentences:

1757: \begin{align}

1758: A_{1}  &  :\text{``}A_{2}\text{ is true and }A_{3}\text{ is false

1759: ''}\label{eq0531}\\

1760: A_{2}  &  :\text{``}A_{1}\text{ is true and }A_{3}\text{ is false

1761: ''}\label{eq0532}\\

1762: A_{3}  &  :\text{``}A_{1}\text{ is false''.} \label{eq0533}%

1763: \end{align}

1764: (\ref{eq0531})--(\ref{eq0533}) \ translates to

1765: \begin{align*}

1766: A_{1}  &  =D_{1}=C_{1}\wedge C_{2}\text{ }\\

1767: A_{2}  &  =D_{2}=C_{3}\wedge C_{2}\\

1768: A_{3}  &  =D_{3}=C_{4}%

1769: \end{align*}

1770: where

1771: \begin{align*}

1772: C_{1}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)  =1\text{''}\\

1773: C_{2}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{3}\right)  =0\text{''}\\

1774: C_{3}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  =1\text{''}\\

1775: C_{4}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  =0\text{''.}%

1776: \end{align*}

1777: 

1778: We will consider two different implemementations of $\wedge$.

1779: 

1780: \subsubsection{$\wedge$ Implemented by Minimum}

1781: 

1782: If we implement $\wedge$ by the min t-norm, the truth value equations become

1783: \begin{align}

1784: x_{1}  &  =\min\left[  x_{2},\left(  1-x_{3}\right)  \right] \label{eq0537}\\

1785: x_{2}  &  =\min\left[  x_{1},\left(  1-x_{3}\right)  \right] \label{eq0538}\\

1786: x_{3}  &  =1-x_{1} \label{eq0539}%

1787: \end{align}

1788: and the inconsistency function is

1789: \begin{equation}

1790: J=\left(  x_{1}-\min\left[  x_{2},\left(  1-x_{3}\right)  \right]  \right)

1791: ^{2}+\left(  x_{2}-\min\left[  x_{1},\left(  1-x_{3}\right)  \right]  \right)

1792: ^{2}+\left(  x_{3}-\left(  1-x_{1}\right)  \right)  ^{2}. \label{eq053a}%

1793: \end{equation}

1794: 

1795: The truth value equations can be solved analytically. From (\ref{eq0539})\ we

1796: obtain

1797: \[

1798: x_{1}=1-x_{3}%

1799: \]

1800: and then (\ref{eq0537}) -- (\ref{eq0538})\ become

1801: \[

1802: x_{1}=\min\left[  x_{2},x_{1}\right]  ,\qquad x_{2}=\min\left[  x_{1}%

1803: ,x_{1}\right]

1804: \]

1805: from which follows that

1806: \[

1807: x_{1}=x_{2},\text{\qquad\ }x_{3}=1-x_{1}.

1808: \]

1809: In other words, the general solution of (\ref{eq0537}) -- (\ref{eq0539})\ is

1810: \[

1811: x=\left(  \beta,\beta,1-\beta\right)

1812: \]

1813: with $\beta\in\left[  0,1\right]  $. Note that this includes the extremal

1814: solutions $\left(  1,1,0\right)  $ and $\left(  0,0,1\right)  $ as well as the

1815: mid-point solution $\left(  1/2,1/2,1/2\right)  $. Also, using (\ref{eq0539}%

1816: )\ \ the inconsistency function becomes

1817: \[

1818: J=\left(  x_{1}-\min\left[  x_{2},x_{1}\right]  \right)  ^{2}+\left(

1819: x_{2}-\min\left[  x_{1},x_{1}\right]  \right)  ^{2}+\left(  x_{3}-\left(

1820: 1-x_{1}\right)  \right)  ^{2}%

1821: \]

1822: which attains the minimum value of 0 for every $x=\left(  \beta,\beta

1823: ,1-\beta\right)  $ with $\beta\in\left[  0,1\right]  $. For the steepest

1824: descent algorithm the dynamical system is

1825: \begin{equation}

1826: x\left(  t+1\right)  =x\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\frac{\partial J}{\partial x}.

1827: \label{eq053c}%

1828: \end{equation}

1829: We cannot write equations for the gradient explicitly, because the expressions

1830: $\min\left[  x_{2},1-x_{3}\right]  $ and $\min\left[  x_{1},1-x_{3}\right]  $

1831: are not everywhere differentiable. However, using an approximate numerical

1832: differentiation we can simulate (\ref{eq053c}). In Figures 10 and 11 we

1833: present results for two typical simulations with $k=0.01$.

1834: 

1835: \begin{center}%

1836: \begin{tabular}

1837: [c]{cc}%

1838: \textbf{Fig. 10.a} & \textbf{Fig. 11.b}\\

1839: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig101.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1840: {\includegraphics{fig102.eps}}

1841: \end{tabular}%

1842: 

1843: \begin{tabular}

1844: [c]{cc}%

1845: \textbf{Fig. 11.a} & \textbf{Fig. 11.b}\\

1846: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig111.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1847: {\includegraphics{fig112.eps}}

1848: \end{tabular}

1849: \end{center}

1850: 

1851: Let us also present the results of the control theoretic algorithm; the

1852: dynamical system is

1853: \begin{align*}

1854: x_{1}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(  x_{2}%

1855: -\min\left[  x_{2}\left(  t\right)  ,1-x_{3}\left(  t\right)  \right]  \right)

1856: \\

1857: x_{2}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(  x_{2}%

1858: -\min\left[  x_{1}\left(  t\right)  ,1-x_{3}\left(  t\right)  \right]  \right)

1859: \\

1860: x_{3}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{3}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1861: x_{3}-\left(  1-x_{1}\left(  t\right)  \right)  \right)  .

1862: \end{align*}

1863: This system is non-linear. In Figures 12 and 13 we present results for two

1864: typical simulations with $k=0.1$.

1865: 

1866: \begin{center}%

1867: \begin{tabular}

1868: [c]{cc}%

1869: \textbf{Fig.12.a} & \textbf{Fig.12.b}\\

1870: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig121.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1871: {\includegraphics{fig122.eps}}

1872: \end{tabular}%

1873: 

1874: \begin{tabular}

1875: [c]{cc}%

1876: \textbf{Fig.13.a} & \textbf{Fig.13.b}\\

1877: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig131.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1878: {\includegraphics{fig132.eps}}

1879: \end{tabular}

1880: \end{center}

1881: 

1882: \subsubsection{$\wedge$ Implemented by Product}

1883: 

1884: Implementing $\wedge$ by the product t-norm we obtain the truth value

1885: equations

1886: \begin{align}

1887: x_{1}  &  =x_{2}\cdot\left(  1-x_{3}\right) \nonumber\\

1888: x_{2}  &  =x_{1}\cdot\left(  1-x_{3}\right) \nonumber\\

1889: x_{3}  &  =1-x_{1}\nonumber

1890: \end{align}

1891: We can still use $x_{1}=1-x_{3}$ to simplify the truth value equations to

1892: \[

1893: x_{1}=x_{2}\cdot x_{1},\qquad x_{2}=x_{1}^{2},\qquad x_{3}=1-x_{1}%

1894: \]

1895: from which we obtain

1896: \[

1897: x_{1}=x_{1}^{3},\qquad x_{2}=x_{1}^{2},\qquad x_{3}=1-x_{1}%

1898: \]

1899: and finally

1900: \[

1901: x_{1}\cdot\left(  1-x_{1}^{2}\right)  =0,\qquad x_{2}=x_{1}^{2},\qquad

1902: x_{3}=1-x_{1}.

1903: \]

1904: This has the solutions

1905: \[

1906: \left(  0,0,1\right)  ,\qquad\left(  1,1,0\right)  ,\qquad\left(

1907: -1,1,0\right)  ;

1908: \]

1909: the last solution, however, is inadmissible as a truth value assignment. Hence

1910: we see that for the same self-referential collection, the product

1911: implementation of $\wedge$ yields a subset of the solutions obtained through

1912: the min implementation.

1913: 

1914: The inconsistency function is

1915: \[

1916: J=\left(  x_{1}-x_{2}\cdot\left(  1-x_{3}\right)  \right)  ^{2}+\left(

1917: x_{2}-x_{1}\cdot\left(  1-x_{3}\right)  \right)  ^{2}+\left(  x_{3}-\left(

1918: 1-x_{1}\right)  \right)  ^{2}%

1919: \]

1920: Because the product operator is everywhere differentiable, we can write

1921: explicitly the gradient equations. We have%

1922: 

1923: \begin{align}

1924: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{1}}  &  =-4x_{1}+4x_{2}+4x_{1}x_{3}-4x_{2}%

1925: x_{3}+2x_{2}x_{3}^{2}\nonumber\\

1926: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{2}}  &  =6x_{1}-4x_{2}+2x_{3}+4x_{2}x_{3}%

1927: -4x_{1}x_{3}+2x_{1}x_{3}^{2}-2\nonumber\\

1928: \frac{\partial J}{\partial x_{3}}  &  =2x_{1}+2x_{3}+4x_{1}x_{2}-2x_{2}%

1929: ^{2}+2x_{2}^{2}x_{3}-2x_{1}^{2}+2x_{1}^{2}x_{3}-2.\nonumber

1930: \end{align}

1931: Using the above expressions and the steepest descent algorithm we obtain

1932: results of the type presented in Figure 14. Note that in the product

1933: implementation the steepest descent algorithm requires a considerably larger

1934: number of steps to converge than for the min implementation.

1935: 

1936: \begin{center}%

1937: \begin{tabular}

1938: [c]{cc}%

1939: \textbf{Fig. 14.a} & \textbf{Fig. 14.b}\\

1940: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig141.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1941: {\includegraphics{fig142.eps}}

1942: \end{tabular}

1943: \end{center}

1944: 

1945: For the the control theoretic algorithm the dynamical system is

1946: \begin{align}

1947: x_{1}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1948: x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -x_{2}\left(  t\right)  \cdot\left(  1-x_{3}\left(

1949: t\right)  \right)  \right) \nonumber\\

1950: x_{2}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1951: x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -x_{1}\left(  t\right)  \cdot\left(  1-x_{3}\left(

1952: t\right)  \right)  \right) \nonumber\\

1953: x_{3}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{3}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

1954: 1-x_{3}\left(  t\right)  \right)  .\nonumber

1955: \end{align}

1956: In Figure 15 we present a typical simulation result. Note the fast convergence

1957: to equilibirum.

1958: 

1959: \begin{center}%

1960: \begin{tabular}

1961: [c]{cc}%

1962: \textbf{Fig. 15.a} & \textbf{Fig. 15.b}\\

1963: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig101.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

1964: {\includegraphics{fig102.eps}}

1965: \end{tabular}

1966: \end{center}

1967: 

1968: \subsection{Example 5}

1969: 

1970: \label{sec0504}

1971: 

1972: Let us now look at an example similar to the previous one, but involving

1973: sentences outside of $\widetilde{\mathbf{S}}_{2}$:

1974: \begin{align}

1975: A_{1}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{2}\text{ is 0.90 and the truth value

1976: of }A_{3}\text{ is 0.20''}\label{eq0541}\\

1977: A_{2}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{1}\text{ is 0.80 and the truth value

1978: of }A_{3}\text{ is 0.30''}\label{eq0542}\\

1979: A_{3}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{1}\text{ is 0.10''.} \label{eq0543}%

1980: \end{align}

1981: (\ref{eq0541})-(\ref{eq0543}) \ translates to

1982: \begin{align*}

1983: A_{1}  &  =D_{1}=C_{1}\wedge C_{2}\text{ }\\

1984: A_{2}  &  =D_{2}=C_{3}\wedge C_{4}\\

1985: A_{3}  &  =D_{3}=C_{5}%

1986: \end{align*}

1987: where

1988: \begin{align*}

1989: C_{1}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{2}\right)  =0.90\text{''}\\

1990: C_{2}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{3}\right)  =0.20\text{''}\\

1991: C_{3}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  =0.80\text{''}\\

1992: C_{4}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{3}\right)  =0.30\text{''}\\

1993: C_{5}  &  :\text{``Tr}\left(  A_{1}\right)  =0.10\text{''.}%

1994: \end{align*}

1995: 

1996: We will consider two different implemementations of $\wedge$.

1997: 

1998: \subsubsection{$\wedge$ Implemented by Minimum}

1999: 

2000: If we implement $\wedge$ with the min operator the truth value equations

2001: become

2002: \begin{align*}

2003: x_{1}  &  =\min\left[  1-\left|  x_{2}-0.90\right|  ,1-\left|  x_{3}%

2004: -0.20\right|  \right] \\

2005: x_{2}  &  =\min\left[  1-\left|  x_{2}-0.80\right|  ,1-\left|  x_{3}%

2006: -0.30\right|  \right] \\

2007: x_{3}  &  =1-\left|  x_{1}-0.10\right|  .

2008: \end{align*}

2009: These equations cannot be further reduced and while in principle they can be

2010: solved analytically by distinguishing cases, this requires an inordinate

2011: amount of work. Instead, we will solve them numerically, using both

2012: Newton-Raphson and the control algorithm. Similarly, we will use steepest

2013: descent to minimize the inconsistency function

2014: \[

2015: J\left(  x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}\right)  =\sum_{m=1}^{3}J_{m}\left(  x_{1}%

2016: ,x_{2},x_{3}\right)

2017: \]

2018: where

2019: \begin{align*}

2020: J_{1}\left(  x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}\right)   &  =\left(  x_{1}-\min\left[

2021: 1-\left|  x_{2}-0.90\right|  ,1-\left|  x_{3}-0.20\right|  \right]  \right)

2022: ^{2}\\

2023: J_{2}\left(  x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}\right)   &  =\left(  x_{2}-\min\left[

2024: 1-\left|  x_{2}-0.80\right|  ,1-\left|  x_{3}-0.30\right|  \right]  \right)

2025: ^{2}\\

2026: J_{3}\left(  x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}\right)   &  =\left(  x_{3}-1-\left|

2027: x_{1}-0.10\right|  \right)  ^{2};

2028: \end{align*}

2029: the dynamical system corresponding to the steepest descent algorithm is%

2030: \begin{align*}

2031: x_{1}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\frac{\partial

2032: J}{\partial x_{1}}\\

2033: x_{2}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\frac{\partial

2034: J}{\partial x_{2}}\\

2035: x_{3}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{3}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\frac{\partial

2036: J}{\partial x_{3}}.

2037: \end{align*}

2038: For a numerical implementation the partial derivatives can be approximated

2039: numerically. Finally, for the control theoretic algorithm the dynamical system

2040: is

2041: \begin{align*}

2042: x_{1}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

2043: x_{1}\left(  t\right)  -\min\left[  1-\left|  x_{2}\left(  t\right)

2044: -0.90\right|  ,1-\left|  x_{3}\left(  t\right)  -0.20\right|  \right]  \right)

2045: \\

2046: x_{2}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

2047: x_{2}\left(  t\right)  -\min\left[  1-\left|  x_{1}\left(  t\right)

2048: -0.90\right|  ,1-\left|  x_{3}\left(  t\right)  -0.20\right|  \right]  \right)

2049: \\

2050: x_{3}\left(  t+1\right)   &  =x_{3}\left(  t\right)  -k\cdot\left(

2051: x_{3}\left(  t\right)  -1+\left|  x_{3}\left(  t\right)  -0.20\right|

2052: \right)  .

2053: \end{align*}

2054: 

2055: In Figure 16 we present some simulation results for the Newton-Raphson

2056: algorithm, in Figure 17 we present results for the steepest descent algorithm

2057: and in Figure 18 for the control theoretic algorithm. Both Newton-Raphson and

2058: the control algorithm discover the same solution, namely $\overline{x}=\left(

2059: 0.95,0.85,0.15\right)  ^{T}$. Repeated simulations (not presented here) give

2060: always the same solution, so it is possible that this is the \emph{unique}

2061: consistent truth value assignment for this problem. The steepest descent

2062: algorithm gets trapped at a local minimum, namely $\overline{x}=\left(

2063: 0.56,0.71,0.59\right)  ^{T}$, which does \emph{not} yield zero inconsistency.

2064: This is not accidental; we have noticed after repeated simulations (not

2065: presented here) that in general the steepest descent algorithm in this case

2066: does not yield zero inconsistency, except when started quite close to the true

2067: solution. Note the very fast convergence of Newton-Raphson:\ it reaches

2068: equilibrium in 7 steps, as compared to the approximately 130 steps required by

2069: the control algorithm.

2070: 

2071: \begin{center}%

2072: \begin{tabular}

2073: [c]{cc}%

2074: \textbf{Fig. 16.a} & \textbf{Fig. 16.b}\\

2075: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig161.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2076: {\includegraphics{fig162.eps}}

2077: \end{tabular}%

2078: 

2079: \begin{tabular}

2080: [c]{cc}%

2081: \textbf{Fig. 17.a} & \textbf{Fig. 17.b}\\

2082: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig171.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2083: {\includegraphics{fig172.eps}}

2084: \end{tabular}%

2085: 

2086: \begin{tabular}

2087: [c]{cc}%

2088: \textbf{Fig. 18.a} & \textbf{Fig. 18.b}\\

2089: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig181.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2090: {\includegraphics{fig182.eps}}

2091: \end{tabular}

2092: \end{center}

2093: 

2094: \subsubsection{$\wedge$ Implemented by Product}

2095: 

2096: The situation is similar when we implement $\wedge$ by product.. The truth

2097: value equations become

2098: \begin{align*}

2099: x_{1}  &  =\left(  1-\left|  x_{2}-0.90\right|  \right)  \cdot\left(

2100: 1-\left|  x_{3}-0.20\right|  \right) \\

2101: x_{2}  &  =\left(  1-\left|  x_{2}-0.80\right|  \right)  \cdot\left(

2102: 1-\left|  x_{3}-0.30\right|  \right) \\

2103: x_{3}  &  =1-\left|  x_{1}-0.10\right|

2104: \end{align*}

2105: We omit the details which are very similar to previous cases and present the

2106: results of numerical simulation.

2107: 

2108: In Figure 19 we present some simulation results for the Newton-Raphson

2109: algorithm, in Figure 20 we present results for the steepest descent algorithm

2110: and in Figure 21 for the control theoretic algorithm. The Newton-Raphson and

2111: steepest descent algorithms reach the solution $\overline{x}=\left(

2112: 0.6784,0.7715,0.4216\right)  ^{T}$, while the control algorithm reaches the

2113: solution $\widetilde{x}=\left(  0.0473,0.0872,0.9473\right)  ^{T}$. Both of

2114: these are consistent truth value assignments; other simulations (not presented

2115: here)\ have yielded additional solutions. Note that in this case the steepest

2116: descent algorithm reaches zero inconsistency. Otherwise, the remarks

2117: previously made for the min implementation also hold for the product implementation.

2118: 

2119: \begin{center}%

2120: \begin{tabular}

2121: [c]{cc}%

2122: \textbf{Fig. 19.a} & \textbf{Fig. 19.b}\\

2123: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig191.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2124: {\includegraphics{fig192.eps}}

2125: \end{tabular}%

2126: 

2127: \begin{tabular}

2128: [c]{cc}%

2129: \textbf{Fig. 20.a} & \textbf{Fig. 20.b}\\

2130: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig201.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2131: {\includegraphics{fig202.eps}}

2132: \end{tabular}%

2133: 

2134: \begin{tabular}

2135: [c]{cc}%

2136: \textbf{Fig. 21.a} & \textbf{Fig. 21.b}\\

2137: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig211.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2138: {\includegraphics{fig212.eps}}

2139: \end{tabular}

2140: \end{center}

2141: 

2142: \subsection{Example 6}

2143: 

2144: \label{sec0505}

2145: 

2146: Here is a more complicated example:

2147: \begin{align*}

2148: A_{1}  &  :\text{(``}A_{1}\text{ has truth value 0.75'' and ``}A_{2}\text{ has

2149: truth value 0.35'') or ``}A_{4}\text{ has truth value 1.00''}\\

2150: A_{2}  &  :\text{(``}A_{1}\text{ or }A_{3}\text{ has truth value 1.00'') and

2151: ``}A_{4}\text{ has truth value 0.10''}\\

2152: A_{3}  &  :\text{``}A_{2}\text{ has truth value 0.00'' and ``}A_{3}\text{ has

2153: truth value 0.35''}\\

2154: A_{4}  &  :\text{``The opposite of }A_{1}\text{ has truth value 0.25''}%

2155: \end{align*}

2156: This translates to

2157: \begin{align*}

2158: A_{1}  &  =\left(  C_{1}\wedge C_{2}\right)  \vee C_{3}\\

2159: A_{2}  &  =C_{4}\wedge C_{5}\\

2160: A_{3}  &  =C_{6}\wedge C_{7}\\

2161: A_{4}  &  =C_{8}%

2162: \end{align*}

2163: where%

2164: 

2165: \begin{align*}

2166: C_{1}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{1}\text{ is 0.75''\quad}\\

2167: C_{2}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{2}\text{ is 0.35''}\\

2168: C_{3}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{4}\text{ is 1.00''}\\

2169: C_{4}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{1}\vee A_{3}\text{ is 1.00''}\\

2170: C_{5}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{4}\text{ is 0.10''}\\

2171: C_{6}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{2}\text{ is 0.00''}\\

2172: C_{7}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{3}\text{ is 0.35''}\\

2173: C_{8}  &  :\text{``The truth value of }A_{1}^{\prime}\text{ is 0.25''.}%

2174: \end{align*}

2175: Note that $C_{4}$ belongs to $\mathbf{S}_{2}$ proper, i.e. it is \emph{not} an

2176: elementary truth value assessment.

2177: 

2178: We consider two alternative systems of truth value equations; in the first

2179: case we implement $\vee$, $\wedge$ by the standard implementation; in the

2180: second case we implement $\vee$, $\wedge$ by the algebraic implementation.

2181: 

2182: \subsubsection{$\wedge$ Implemented by Minimum, $\vee$ Implemented by Maximum}

2183: 

2184: We present the truth value equations:

2185: \begin{align}

2186: x_{1}  &  =\max\left[  \min\left(  1-\left|  x_{1}-0.75\right|  ,1-\left|

2187: x_{2}-0.35\right|  \right)  ,1-\left|  x_{4}-1.00\right|  \right]

2188: \label{eq101}\\

2189: x_{2}  &  =\min\left[  1-\left|  \max\left(  x_{1},x_{3}\right)  -1.00\right|

2190: ,1-\left|  x_{4}-0.10\right|  \right] \label{eq102}\\

2191: x_{3}  &  =\min\left[  1-\left|  x_{2}-0.00\right|  ,1-\left|  x_{3}%

2192: -0.35\right|  \right] \label{eq103}\\

2193: x_{4}  &  =1-\left|  1-x_{1}-0.25\right|  . \label{eq104}%

2194: \end{align}

2195: We omit further details and directly present the results of numerical simulation.

2196: 

2197: In Figures 22, 23 we present some simulation results for the Newton-Raphson

2198: algorithm, with various initial conditions. Note that in both figures the

2199: algorithm fails to locate a consistent truth value assignment; this is true

2200: for most of the simulations we have run, i.e. usually Newton-Raphson fails to

2201: solve the truth value equations (\ref{eq101})--(\ref{eq104}).

2202: 

2203: \begin{center}%

2204: \begin{tabular}

2205: [c]{cc}%

2206: \textbf{Fig. 22.a} & \textbf{Fig. 22.b}\\

2207: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig221.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2208: {\includegraphics{fig222.eps}}

2209: \end{tabular}%

2210: 

2211: \begin{tabular}

2212: [c]{cc}%

2213: \textbf{Fig. 23.a} & \textbf{Fig. 23.b}\\

2214: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig231.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2215: {\includegraphics{fig232.eps}}

2216: \end{tabular}

2217: \end{center}

2218: 

2219: \medskip In Figures 24, 25 we present some simulation results for the steepest

2220: descent algorithm, with various initial conditions. In Figure 24 the algorithm

2221: converges to $\overline{x}$=$\left(  0.875,0.225,0.675,0.875\right)  ^{T}$

2222: which yields zero total inconsistency; this is not the case in Figure 25,

2223: where the algorithm converges to a local minimum and the truth value equations

2224: are not satisfied. This has occurred in several simualtions, i.e. the steepest

2225: descent algorithm does not reliably solve the truth value equations

2226: (\ref{eq101})--(\ref{eq104}).

2227: 

2228: \begin{center}%

2229: \begin{tabular}

2230: [c]{cc}%

2231: \textbf{Fig. 24.a} & \textbf{Fig. 24.b}\\

2232: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig241.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2233: {\includegraphics{fig242.eps}}

2234: \end{tabular}%

2235: 

2236: \begin{tabular}

2237: [c]{cc}%

2238: \textbf{Fig. 25.a} & \textbf{Fig. 25.b}\\

2239: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig251.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2240: {\includegraphics{fig252.eps}}

2241: \end{tabular}

2242: \end{center}

2243: 

2244: \medskip In Figures 26, 27 we present some simulation results for the control

2245: theoretic algorithm, with various initial conditions. The algorithm always

2246: converges to $\overline{x}$=$\left(  0.875,0.225,0.675,0.875\right)  ^{T}$

2247: which yields zero total inconsistency. Indeed, having run a large number of

2248: additional simulations we have noticed that the control algorithm \emph{always

2249: }converges; furthermore the equilibrium is always the above mentioned

2250: $\overline{x}$, which perhaps indicates that it is the unique solution of the

2251: truth value equations (\ref{eq101})--(\ref{eq104}).

2252: 

2253: \begin{center}%

2254: \begin{tabular}

2255: [c]{cc}%

2256: \textbf{Fig. 26.a} & \textbf{Fig. 26.b}\\

2257: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig261.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2258: {\includegraphics{fig262.eps}}

2259: \end{tabular}%

2260: 

2261: \begin{tabular}

2262: [c]{cc}%

2263: \textbf{Fig. 27.a} & \textbf{Fig. 27.b}\\

2264: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig271.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2265: {\includegraphics{fig272.eps}}

2266: \end{tabular}

2267: \end{center}

2268: 

2269: \subsubsection{$\wedge$ Implemented by Product, $\vee$ Implemented by Extended Sum}

2270: 

2271: We present the truth value equations:

2272: \begin{align}

2273: x_{1}  &  =\left(  1-\left|  x_{1}-0.75\right|  \right)  \cdot\left(

2274: 1-\left|  x_{2}-0.35\right|  \right)  +\left(  1-\left|  x_{4}-1.00\right|

2275: \right) \nonumber\\

2276: &  -\left(  1-\left|  x_{1}-0.75\right|  \right)  \cdot\left(  1-\left|

2277: x_{2}-0.35\right|  \right)  \cdot\left(  1-\left|  x_{4}-1.00\right|  \right)

2278: \label{eq111}\\

2279: x_{2}  &  =\left(  1-\left|  x_{1}+x_{3}-x_{1}x_{3}-1.00\right|  \right)

2280: \cdot\left(  1-\left|  x_{4}-0.10\right|  \right) \label{eq113}\\

2281: x_{3}  &  =\left(  1-\left|  x_{2}-0.00\right|  \right)  \cdot\left(

2282: 1-\left|  x_{3}-0.35\right|  \right) \label{eq112}\\

2283: x_{4}  &  =1-\left|  1-x_{1}-0.25\right|  . \label{eq116}%

2284: \end{align}

2285: We omit further details and directly present the results of numerical

2286: simulation. In Figures 28 and 29 we present some simulation results for the

2287: Newton-Raphson algorithm, with various initial conditions. The algorithm

2288: always finds the solution $\overline{x}=\left(

2289: 0.9507,0.2942,0.5586,0.7993\right)  ^{T}$. \medskip In Figures 30 and 31 we

2290: present some simulation results for the steepest descent algorithm, with

2291: various initial conditions. Note that in Figure 31 the algorithm converges to

2292: a local minimum (nonzero) of the total inconsistency.

2293: 

2294: \begin{center}%

2295: \begin{tabular}

2296: [c]{cc}%

2297: \textbf{Fig. 28.a} & \textbf{Fig. 28.b}\\

2298: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig281.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2299: {\includegraphics{fig282.eps}}

2300: \end{tabular}%

2301: 

2302: \begin{tabular}

2303: [c]{cc}%

2304: \textbf{Fig. 29.a} & \textbf{Fig. 29.b}\\

2305: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig291.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2306: {\includegraphics{fig292.eps}}

2307: \end{tabular}%

2308: 

2309: \begin{tabular}

2310: [c]{cc}%

2311: \textbf{Fig. 30.a} & \textbf{Fig. 30.b}\\

2312: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig301.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2313: {\includegraphics{fig302.eps}}

2314: \end{tabular}%

2315: 

2316: \begin{tabular}

2317: [c]{cc}%

2318: \textbf{Fig. 31.a} & \textbf{Fig. 31.b}\\

2319: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig311.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2320: {\includegraphics{fig312.eps}}

2321: \end{tabular}

2322: \end{center}

2323: 

2324: Finally, in Figures 32 and 33 we present some simulation results for the

2325: control theoretic algorithm, with various initial conditions. The algorithm

2326: always converges to the following solution of the truth value equations

2327: (\ref{eq111})--(\ref{eq116}): $\overline{x}=\left(

2328: 0.9507,0.2942,0.5586,0.7993\right)  ^{T}$ , rendering likely that this is the

2329: unique solution.

2330: 

2331: \begin{center}%

2332: \begin{tabular}

2333: [c]{cc}%

2334: \textbf{Fig. 32.a} & \textbf{Fig. 32.b}\\

2335: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig321.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2336: {\includegraphics{fig322.eps}}

2337: \end{tabular}%

2338: 

2339: \begin{tabular}

2340: [c]{cc}%

2341: \textbf{Fig. 33.a} & \textbf{Fig. 33.b}\\

2342: \scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{fig331.eps}}  & \scalebox{0.5}%

2343: {\includegraphics{fig332.eps}}

2344: \end{tabular}

2345: \end{center}

2346: 

2347: \subsection{Example 7: The Strengthened Liar}

2348: 

2349: \label{secA07}

2350: 

2351: This final example does not fall, strictly speaking, within the framework we

2352: have presented. However it can be treated by a small, straightforward

2353: extension of our approach.

2354: 

2355: The example is the so-called ``Strengthened Liar'', a self-referential

2356: sentence which has been often used as a test of proposed solutions to the Liar

2357: paradox \cite{Rieger}. The Strengthened Liar sentence is

2358: \begin{equation}

2359: A=\text{``}A\text{ is not true''.} \label{eq0571}%

2360: \end{equation}

2361: 

2362: To treat this and similar sentences in the fuzzy context we must translate it

2363: in terms of a membership function for the property of being not true. To this

2364: end, consider the sentence

2365: \begin{equation}

2366: C=\text{``The truth value of }A\text{ is not }a\text{''.}\label{eq0572}%

2367: \end{equation}

2368: A possible truth value assignment for (\ref{eq0572}) is

2369: \[

2370: \text{Tr}\left(  C\right)  =\left\{

2371: \begin{array}

2372: [c]{cc}%

2373: 1 & \text{when Tr}\left(  A\right)  \neq a\\

2374: 0 & \text{else}%

2375: \end{array}

2376: \right.  .

2377: \]

2378: However, this is too strict. Consider the case when $a=1$ and Tr$\left(

2379: A\right)  =0.99$. Do we really want to assign Tr$\left(  C\right)  =1$? How

2380: about the case Tr$\left(  A\right)  =0.99999$? A more reasonable truth value

2381: assignment is

2382: \begin{equation}

2383: \text{Tr}\left(  C\right)  =\left|  \text{Tr}\left(  A\right)  -a\right|

2384: \label{eq0574}%

2385: \end{equation}

2386: which takes the maximum value of 1 when $\left|  \text{Tr}\left(  A\right)

2387: -a\right|  =1$, i.e. in the cases

2388: 

2389: \begin{enumerate}

2390: \item Tr$\left(  A\right)  =1$ and $a=0$;

2391: 

2392: \item Tr$\left(  A\right)  =0$ and $a=1$.

2393: \end{enumerate}

2394: 

2395: Let us accept (\ref{eq0574}) and set $A=C$, i.e.

2396: \begin{equation}

2397: A=\text{``Tr}\left(  A\right)  \neq a\text{''.} \label{eq0575}%

2398: \end{equation}

2399: (\ref{eq0575}) is more general than (\ref{eq0571}); to obtain (\ref{eq0571}%

2400: )\ we set $a=1$:

2401: \[

2402: A=\text{``Tr}\left(  A\right)  \neq1\text{''.}%

2403: \]

2404: Hence, setting $x=$Tr$\left(  A\right)  $, we must solve the truth value

2405: equation

2406: \[

2407: x=\left|  x-1\right|  =1-x

2408: \]

2409: which has the unique solution $x=1/2$.

2410: 

2411: Obviously this approach can be extended to treat situations which involve

2412: statements of the form

2413: \[

2414: \text{``The truth value of }B\text{ is not }b\text{''}%

2415: \]

2416: for any $B\in\mathbf{S}_{1}$. Hence our framework can be extended defining

2417: $\mathbf{V}_{2}$, the set of 2nd level elementary sentences to include both

2418: sentences of the form

2419: \[

2420: \text{Tr}\left(  B\right)  =b

2421: \]

2422: and

2423: \[

2424: \text{Tr}\left(  B\right)  \neq b.

2425: \]

2426: The definition of $\mathbf{S}_{2}$ remains unchanged but, since it depends on

2427: the expanded $\mathbf{V}_{2}$, results to an expansion of $\mathbf{S}_{2}$ as

2428: well. We leave the details to the reader

2429: 

2430: \subsection{Discussion of the Algorithms}

2431: 

2432: \label{secA08}

2433: 

2434: Let us close with a short comparison of the three numerical algorithms. We see

2435: that the Newton-Raphson algorithm converges very quickly but not always to a

2436: solution of the truth value equations. Regarding steepest descent, its

2437: convergence is guaranteed but not always to point of zero inconsistency. It

2438: appears that the control-theoretic algorithm combines the best

2439: properties:\ practically guaranteed convergence to a point of zero

2440: inconsistency and in a relatively small number of iterations. Of course, all

2441: of the above remarks refer to the experiments of the previous sections;

2442: further numerical experiments (and, perhaps, analytical work) are required to

2443: establish their general validity.

2444: \end{document}