5 found
Sort by:
  1. Michael Freund (2013). On Categorial Membership. Erkenntnis:1-24.
    We investigate the family of concepts that an agent comes to know through a set of defining features, and examine the role played by these features in the process of categorization. In a qualitative framework, categorial membership is evaluated through an order relation among the objects at hand, which translates the fact that an object may fall more than another under a given concept. For concepts defined by their features, this global membership order depends on the degree with which each (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Michael Freund (2001). Full Meet Revision on Stratified Bases. Theoria 67 (3):189-213.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Michael Freund (1994). The W Systems: Between Maximum Entropy and Minimal Ranking…. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 4 (1):79-90.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Michael Freund & Daniel Lehmann (1994). Nonmonotonic Reasoning: From Finitary Relations to Infinitary Inference Operations. Studia Logica 53 (2):161 - 201.
    A. Tarski [22] proposed the study of infinitary consequence operations as the central topic of mathematical logic. He considered monotonicity to be a property of all such operations. In this paper, we weaken the monotonicity requirement and consider more general operations, inference operations. These operations describe the nonmonotonic logics both humans and machines seem to be using when infering defeasible information from incomplete knowledge. We single out a number of interesting families of inference operations. This study of infinitary inference operations (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Michael Freund (1993). Supracompact Inference Operations. Studia Logica 52 (3):457 - 481.
    When a proposition is cumulatively entailed by a finite setA of premisses, there exists, trivially, a finite subsetB ofA such thatB B entails for all finite subsetsB that are entailed byA. This property is no longer valid whenA is taken to be an arbitrary infinite set, even when the considered inference operation is supposed to be compact. This leads to a refinement of the classical definition of compactness. We call supracompact the inference operations that satisfy the non-finitary analogue of the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation