1996
DOI: 10.1016/0165-0114(95)00262-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpretations of various uncertainty theories using models of modal logic: A summary

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In [32][33][34], the modal logic interpretation of various uncertainty theories is based on the fundamental semantics of modal logic using Kripke models. A model, M, of modal logic is a triple…”
Section: Modal Logicmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In [32][33][34], the modal logic interpretation of various uncertainty theories is based on the fundamental semantics of modal logic using Kripke models. A model, M, of modal logic is a triple…”
Section: Modal Logicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the last decade, Resconi et al [32][33][34] have developed a hierarchical uncertainty meta-theory based upon modal logic. In particular, they established the usual semantics of propositional modal logic as a unifying framework within which various theories of uncertainty, including the fuzzy set theory, Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence, possibility theory, and Sugeno's k-measures, can be conceptualized, compared, and organized hierarchically.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 However, there is no uniformity in the construction of membership functions at present. Resconi et al [3][4][5][6] developed a hierarchical uncertainty meta-theory based upon modal logic. Dubois and Prade 7 explored three main semantics for membership functions in which each semantic underlies a particular class of applications.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example with three classes and four agents we have that the number of the possible configurations are 4 3 81 W   (26) Among the 81 possible cases we select the 8 possible complex evaluations of the student logic state in this way 1 ( …”
Section: Rough Sets By Active Sets Of Agents and Decision Rulesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Where Q is the linear superposition of the logic value for the active set. Resconi [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] , Hinde [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] .…”
Section: Properties and Definition Of The Active Setmentioning
confidence: 99%