The Logic of Typical and Atypical Instances (LTA)

The difference between typical instances and atypical instances in a natural categorization process has been introduced by E. Rosh and studied by cognitive psychology and AI. A lot of the knowledge representation systems are expressed in using fuzzy concepts but a degree of membership raises some problem for natural categorizations (especially to classification problems in anthropology, ethnology, archeology, linguistics but also in ontologies), but atypical instances of a concept cannot be apprehended adequately by different degrees from a prototype. Other formal approaches, as paraconsistent logics or non monotonic logics, conceptualize often atypical objects as exceptions. It had yet been developed an alternative way with the logics of determination of the objects (LDO). In this paper, we present the logics of typical and atypical (LTA) in order to give directly a logical approach of typicality / atypicality associated to a concept by a more common way than in LDO, in using only classes and not determination operators. It is introduced a distinction between predicative property and concept defined with its intension and its essence, a part of intension. A typical instance of a concept inherits all properties of intension; a typical instance inherits only properties of essence but it is a full member of the category associated to a concept and not a member with a weak degree of membership. In natural categorization, there are often instances (the exceptions) which do not inherit some properties of the essence; they cannot be considered as atypical instance and belong to the boundary of the category.

[1]  Gottlob Frege,et al.  The basic laws of arithmetic : exposition of the system , 1966 .

[2]  Anca Pascu,et al.  Logic of Determination of Objects (LDO): How to Articulate “Extension” with “Intension” and “Objects” with “Concepts” , 2011, Logica Universalis.

[3]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  Roderick M. Chisholm,et al.  Brentano and Meinong Studies , 1982 .

[5]  Nikolaos G. Bourbakis,et al.  International journal on artificial intelligence tools : architectures, languages, algorithms : AI theory, AI tools, AI applications , 1992 .

[6]  Jean-Pierre Descles Categorisation: A Logical Approach to a Cognitive problem , 2002 .

[7]  William C. Frederick,et al.  A Combinatory Logic , 1995 .

[8]  Graham Priest Paraconsistent Set Theory , 2011 .

[9]  Anca Pascu,et al.  Logic of Determination of Objects: the Meaning of Variable in Quantification , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[10]  N.C.A Costa,et al.  On paraconsistent set theories , 1992 .

[11]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of paraconsistency , 2007 .

[12]  Janette Friedrich,et al.  [Compte rendu de :] Husserl, Stumpf, Ehrenfels, Meinong, Twardowski, Marty. A l'école de Brentano. De Würzbourg à Vienne / Denis Fisette et Guillaume Fréchette (dir) , 2010 .

[13]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy Sets , 1996, Inf. Control..

[14]  Jean-François Le Ny,et al.  Science cognitive et compréhension du langage , 1989 .

[15]  René Lalement,et al.  La logique ou l'art de raisonner , 2000 .