• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>International Conference on Model-Based Reasoning: Scientific Discovery, Technological Innovation, Values (MBR'01) May, 2001 Pavia, Italy >A LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF GRAPHICAL CONSISTENCY PROOFS
【24h】

A LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF GRAPHICAL CONSISTENCY PROOFS

机译：图形一致性协议的逻辑分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In this paper, we investigate the semantic mechanism of graphical consistency proofs, where one expresses a certain condition in a chart, a diagram, or some other graphical representation, and uses the existence of such an graphic as a proof of the consistency of the expressed conditions. We first show that such a proof is guaranteed to be sound by a special matching of constraints between representations and represented situations. We then extend our analysis to another types of graphics-based inferences called "free rides", and show that they also rely on a matching of constraints between representations and represented situations. Comparisons of graphical consistency proofs and free rides let us see three commonalities between these two inferential procedures, and let us define the general notion of physical on-site inference, where perceptually present objects are used as inferential surrogates through physical operations. Our analysis is therefore a clarification of the exact semantic requirements for one representative way in which a visual representation participates in distributed cognition [Giere, 2001] or manipulative inferences [Magnani, 2001].
机译：在本文中，我们研究了图形一致性证明的语义机制，其中人们在图表，图表或其他图形表示形式中表达某种条件，并使用这种图形的存在作为所表达一致性的证明。条件。我们首先证明，通过对表示和表示情况之间的约束进行特殊匹配，可以保证这种证明是正确的。然后，我们将分析扩展到称为“搭便车”的另一种基于图形的推理，并表明它们还依赖于表示和表示情况之间的约束匹配。图形一致性证明和免费乘车的比较使我们看到了这两个推理过程之间的三个共性，并且让我们定义了物理现场推理的一般概念，其中在感知上存在的对象通过物理操作被用作推理代理。因此，我们的分析是对视觉表示参与分布式认知[Giere，2001]或操纵性推论[Magnani，2001]的一种代表性方式的确切语义要求的澄清。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号