David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
What is the relationship between the degree of learning difficulty of a Boolean concept (i.e., a category defined by logical rules expressed in terms of Boolean operators) and the complexity of its logical description? Feldman [(2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature, 407(October), 630–633] investigated this question experimentally by defining the complexity of a Boolean formula (that logically describes a concept) as the length of the shortest formula logically equivalent to it. Using this measure as the independent variable in his experiment, he concludes that in general, the subjective difficulty of learning a Boolean concept is well predicted by Boolean complexity. Moreover, he claims that one of the landmark results and benchmarks in the human concept learning literature, the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins learning difficulty ordering, is precisely predicted by this hypothesis. However, in what follows, we introduce a heuristic procedure for reducing Boolean formulae, based in part on the well-established minimization technique from Boolean algebra known as the Quine–McCluskey (QM) method, which when applied to the SHJ Boolean concept types reveals that some of their complexity values are notably different from the approximate values obtained by Feldman. Furthermore, using the complexity values for these simpler expressions fails to predict the correct empirical difficulty ordering of the SHJ concept types. Motivated by these findings, this note includes a brief tutorial on the QM method and concludes with a brief discussion on some of the challenges facing the complexity hypothesis.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Geoffrey P. Goodwin & Philip N. Johnson-Laird (2013). The Acquisition of Boolean Concepts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17 (3):128-133.
Ronaldo Vigo (2013). The Gist of Concepts. Cognition 129 (1):138-162.
Similar books and articles
Robert Bonnet & Matatyahu Rubin (1991). Elementary Embedding Between Countable Boolean Algebras. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (4):1212-1229.
Sakaé Fuchino (1994). Some Remarks on Openly Generated Boolean Algebras. Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (1):302-310.
Janusz Czelakowski (1979). Partial Boolean Algebras in a Broader Sense. Studia Logica 38 (1):1 - 16.
Michael Baumgartner (2009). Uncovering Deterministic Causal Structures: A Boolean Approach. Synthese 170 (1):71 - 96.
Bolesław Sobociński (1973). Note About the Boolean Parts of the Extended Boolean Algebras. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 14 (3):419-422.
Ludomir Newelski & Roman Wencel (2001). Definable Sets in Boolean-Ordered o-Minimal Structures. I. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (4):1821-1836.
V. L. Selivanov (1995). Fine Hierarchies and Boolean Terms. Journal of Symbolic Logic 60 (1):289-317.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #713,728 of 1,934,803 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,672 of 1,934,803 )
How can I increase my downloads?