Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Dr Ashok Banerji,
Faculty and Content Expert, Jones International University, USA
a.banerji@ieee.org
Abstract
The importance of Logic and its mathematical formulation can hardly be overstated in the
modern age of Information Technology. Design, implementation and innovations of both
computer hardware and software systems are dependent on Logic in different forms and
formats. Digital logic is mainly used for hardware design. Symbolic logic and Propositional
Calculus are essentially required for the design of Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications.
Given the current level of understanding there is a need to review Logic from the perspective
ancient wisdom. Can Indian Logic, both old and new systems, known as Puratana Nyaya (PN)
and Nabya Nyaya (NN), help more efficient AI design process? This paper is an attempt in that
direction. It will first review the origin of the concept of logic and thereafter it will propose the
possible areas of application in modern context.
Before an answer to the actual question of AI design is sought, we need to remove a common
misconception. It is commonly believed that the concept Logic was first introduced by Greek
philosopher Aristotle around 300 years BC. However, Indian Shastras and Puranas clearly
indicate that India's Gautam Muni introduced Logic concepts during Ramanaya period which
will be not less than 3000 years old before Christ. This means that Logic System was
introduced in India some 5000 years before from now, much earlier than Aristotle.
Modern Encyclopedia names, India, Greece and China, as the probable place of origination of
the logic system. It will be worth to trace the history of its origin. Based on historical facts and
figures it can now be claimed that the logic concept was introduced in India first through the
Nyaya Shastra. Thereafter the knowledge went to China around 500 years BC, through
Buddhist and Jaina monks, and through Alexander the Great, reached to Aristotle of Greece.
Sarma (2005) has given a very nice description of the Indian Logic Systems and indicated how
those concepts can be mapped to solve computer science problems. He has shown how better
knowledge representation is possible using Indian logic systems [11]. This paper shows how the
inference mechanism can be improved using Indian Logic Systems. This can be used for design
of Inference Engine of an Expert System. Further, the explanation mechanism can also be
improved utilizing the ancient concept that originated in India but hardly known to the current
day academia.
The first proper compilation of scattered Indian logical concepts (in the name of Nyaya
Sutras) was done by Medhatithi Gautama and Aksapada Gautama around 550—150 BCE
[5, 10]. Kallisthenes (370—327BCE), a friend of Aristotle and court historian to Alexander
the Great, collected all the texts of Nyaya Sutras and handed over all of them to Aristotle
who is regarded as the father of western logic, mathematics and science. In fact, the 3-step
Greek logical reasoning (syllogism) is a simplified formal representation of the 5-step
Indian method of reasoning originally proposed by Gautama.
As commented by Glashoff [13], western logic is more mathematics based whereas Indian
logic is more analogy and epistemology based. However, Nabya Nyaya tried to introduce
the concept of predicate calculus in the process of reasoning maintaining the traditional 5-
step syllogism – Pratijna, hetu, vyapti, upanaya, nigamana [Schayer, 1933]. The third step
udaharana is modified by vyapti to take care of ‘for-all’, ‘some or none’ propositions.
Indian Buddhist monk Dignaga is regarded as the Indian Aristotle [14]. Buddhist logic, as
proposed by him, follows the following 5 temporal steps:-
i) Formulation of a formal rule for syllogism;
ii) Development of formal syllogistic using the wheel of reasoning
( hetucakradamaru);
iii) Simplification of the syllogism;
iv) Introduction of the word “eva” [from general to specific];
v) Refinement or minimization of the general rule.
John Venn (1880) introduced Venn diagram for analyzing categorical syllogism [one circle
for each term].
Thus a predicate may assume any one of the three truth values --- true (T), false (F), and
non-assertible (U). So it is an extension of the conventional two truth values (T & F)
assertions. Such multi-valued assertions will be able to cope up many imprecise decision
and diagnostic problems solved by Fuzzy logic at present. In fact, this 7-predicate approach
can guide Fuzzy system designers in a much better way.
(a) Indian logic is better to apply in situations where available facts and rules are
insufficient to apply proper reasoning. In contrast, Aristotelian logic will be better
when available knowledge base is quite rich and strong.
(b) Indian logic gives more emphasis on experience, belief and hearsay, whereas
Aristotelian logic puts more faith on mathematical reasoning. Although
mathematical reasoning is more precise, but may not cope up truly with all real life
situations. To tackle imprecise and ill-defined real life problems, Indian logic may be
found more suitable.
(c) In designing Expert Systems, Indian logic will be more helpful than Aristotelian
logic as experts seldom can give mathematical justification to the decisions or
choices taken by them. Experts often apply analogy or case based reasoning.
(d) The knowledge acquired and represented through Indian logic can be stored in a
Knowledge Base (KB) with additional slots or links which can help accelerating
both forward and backward chaining mechanism used in Inference Engines.
According to Dharmakirti [6, 14] a relation should have any of the following characteristics
[11]: i) Dependency is a relation (aRb).
ii) Amalgamation or contact is a relation.
iii) Expectancy is a relation.
iv) Cause-effect is a relation.
v) The common feature that exists between two things is a relation.
In data and knowledge base schema design, the above mentioned aspects can be included to
make reasoning more efficient.
According to NN, use of both table and frame as a direct (sakshat) relation and table or
frame/slot chaining as chain relations (paramapara) can be used for Knowledge
manipulation in Expert systems.
The ‘inference engine’ provides control and navigation mechanism to search through the
knowledge base and help arriving at a proper decision. Three most popular inference
drawing techniques are – ‘forward chaining’ (generating new assertions from existing rules),
‘backward chaining’ (most suitable for medical diagnosis and fault finding) and ‘tree
searches’ (suitable when knowledge base is represented as a network or tree or forest
structure).
When knowledge is represented in the form of frames or objects and relationships, on which
Navya Nyaya has given much stress, frame and semantic network model will be most
suitable and inference engine will be able to work on tree search technique.
In fact, Frame based knowledge representation can also take care of case based and non-
monotonic reasoning [2, 3] for which Indian logic is most famous. Horn clause or first
order predicate based reasoning is found applicable mostly for monotonic knowledge bases.
User Interface (UI) is another important component of an Expert System. UI can collect
additional information which can influence a search process to arrive at a better decision.
More over, a user can ask for explanation in support of the decisions taken. Of course,
Indian logic embedded frame based knowledge representation can make UI design more
efficient.
Let us now examine how Indian logic can be embedded in a frame based Expert System.
Such a frame structure can be used to accommodate Indian style of logical reasoning. The
5-step Indian syllogism starts with the problem in question (1st step) and ends with the final
decision or inference (5th step). The second step – hetu – can be taken care of by the rules in
the conventional way. The 3rd step – udarahana or vyapti – can be accommodated by adding
a new slot in the frame structure and case based reasoning can be triggered as and when
Indian Logic and AI System Design. Ghosh and Banerji, 2006 7
required. The 4th step – upanaya -- is nothing but conventional search mechanism adopted
by the IE component of ES. Slot attribute values can take care of uncertainties and
impreciseness by 7-predicate fuzzy logic based implementation.
Frame :: Car
Frame :: Name
(a) (b)
Figure 2: A general Frame Structure (a) with an example – Car(b)
Such a frame structure can be used to accommodate Indian style of logical reasoning. The
5-step Indian syllogism starts with the problem in question (1st step) and ends with the final
decision or inference (5th step). The second step – hetu – can be taken care of by the rules in
the conventional way. The 3rd step – udarahana or vyapti – can be accommodated by adding
a new slot in the frame structure and case based reasoning can be triggered as and when
required. The 4th step – upanaya -- is nothing but conventional search mechanism adopted
by the IE component of ES. Slot attribute values can take care of uncertainties and
impreciseness by 7-predicate fuzzy logic based implementation.
To accommodate Indian logic concepts in a frame structure, addition of slots and facets in
those slots may be necessary. With such enhanced frames, the processing speed and
inference accuracy can be improved easily.
7. Conclusion
This paper tried to trace out the history and growth of Indian logic and the most valuable
contributions made by Indian scholars even before the emergence of Aristotelian logic in
Greece. Example or case based Indian logical reasoning has some advantages over first
order predicate calculus based formal reasoning as real-life reality can never be fully
expressed in mathematical forms.
To improve decision making search processes and to ensure quicker convergence, both
Indian and Western logical methods are to be combined and that can be made possible easily
if frame based knowledge representation is adopted. Such a combined approach is proposed
here for further exploration by the future researchers who will be able to trace out many
more valuable but forgotten areas of Indian logic.
References
[1]Ganeri, J. (2002). Ancient Indian Logic as a Theory of Case-Based Reasoning.
Journal of Indian Philosophy, 33–45. Accessed from
http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~jonardon/pdf/casebasedreasoning.pdf.
[2]Oetke, C. (1996). Ancient Indian Logic as a Theory of Non-Monotonic Reasoning.
J. of Indian Philosophy, 24.
[3]Kolodner, J.L. (1992). An Introduction to Case-based Reasoning. AI Review, 6.
[4]Padhy, N.P. (2005). Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Systems. Oxford
University Press.
[5]Kak, S. (2005). Aristotle and Gautama on Logic and Physics. S. Louisiana State
University, ArXiv: Physics / 0505172 v1, accessed from
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505172.
[6]Sarma, V.V.S. (2003). Indian Logic and AI , BiswaBharat@tdil, Technology Watch.
Accessed from http://www.tdil.mit.gov.in/TDIL-OCT-
2003/indian%20logic%20&%20artificial%20intelligence.pdf.
[7]Poole, D., Mackworth, A. and Goebel, R. (1998).Computational Intelligence: a
logical approach. Oxford University Press.
[8]http://en.wikipedia.org/../../
[9]Ganeri, J. (ed) (2001). Indian Logic: A Reader. Routledge, London, ISBN
0700713298.
[10]Kak, S. (2003). Indian Physics: Outline of Early History. ArXiv Physics :0310001. Accessed from
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0310/0310001.pdf.
[11]Sarma, V.V.S. (2005). Indian Systems of Logic (Nyaya): A Survey. IIT Bombay
Logic Conference, 8-1-2005.