paraconsistent

Obtained by interpreting relations as properties of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ties of tuples. So, R _ S is the \either-R-or-S " property. Now since R+ and S + are the sets of tuples for which the properties R and S , respectively, are believed to hold, the set of tuples for which the property \either-R-or-S " is believed to hold is clearly R+ S +. Moreover, since R? and S ? are the sets of tuples for which properties R and S , respectively, are believed to not hold, the set of tuples for which the property \either-R-or-S " is believed to not hold is similarly R? \ S ?. 7 In an informal symbolic notation, R+ = ft j R(t)g, and R? = ft j not R(t)g. Now, (R _ S )+ = ft j R(t) or S (t)g, which is R+ S +. Similarly, (R _ S )? = ft j not (R(t) or S (t))g = ft j not R(t) and not S (t)g, which is R? \ S ?. The de nition of complement and of all the other operators on paraconsistent relations de ned later can (and should) be understood in the same way. _ Proposition 3 The operators _ and unary ? on paraconsistent relations are strong generalisations of the usual operators and unary ? on ordinary relations. Proof Let R and S be consistent relations on scheme . Then comps (R _ S ) is the set fQ j R+ S + Q ( ) ? (R? \ S ?)g. This set is the same as the set fr s j R+ r ( ) ? R?; S + s ( ) ? S ?g, which is S ( )(comps (R); comps (S )). Such a _ result for unary ? can also be shown similarly. 2 For sake of completeness, we de ne the following two related set-theoretic operators on paraconsistent relations: De nition 9 Let R and S be paraconsistent relations on scheme . Then, _ (a) the intersection of R and S , denoted R \ S , is a paraconsistent relation on scheme , given by _ (R \ S )+ = R+ \ S +; _ (R \ S )? = R? S ?; _ (b) the di erence of R and S , denoted R ? S , is a paraconsistent relation on scheme , given by _ (R ? S )+ = R+ \ S ?; _ (R ? S )? = R? S +: 2 Again, to obtain an intuitive grasp of such de nitions, let us consider the di erence _ operator. We should interpret R ? S as the \R-but-not-S " property. Now the tuples that _ de nitely have this property are exactly those in R+ \ S ?. Thus, (R ? S )+ = R+ \ S ?. Moreover, the tuples that de nitely do not have this property are the ones in R? S +. _ Hence, (R ? S )? = R? S +. _ In our informal symbolic notation, (R ? S )+ = ft j R(t) and not S (t)g, which is + \ S ?. Similarly, (R ? S )? = ft j not (R(t) and not S (t))g = ft j not R(t) or S (t)g, _ R ? S +. which is R Although we have given independent de nitions of intersection and di erence, these two operators can be derived from the fundamental operators union and complement as intuitively expected. 8 Proposition 4 For any paraconsistent relations R and S on a common scheme, we have __ _ _ R \ S = ?(?R _ ?S ); and _ __ R ? S = ?(?R _ S ): __ _ _ _ _ _ _ Proof (?(?R _ ?S ))+ = (?R _ ?S )? = (?R)? \ (?S )? = R+ \ S + = (R \ S )+. ? = (R \ S )? . The second part of the result can be shown _ (?R _ ?S )) _ _ _ Similarly, (? similarly. 2 Table 1 gives some more algebraic laws involving the set-theoretic opera...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/28/2013 for the course CSC 8710 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '08 term at Georgia State.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online