Integral Space Concrete Roof Structure System Optimization Research
0
Citation
0
Reference
10
Related Paper
Abstract:
Based on the experimental study, summarizes the disadvantages of the test roof; On the same premise of the roof to keep the overall appearance, the structural system of the roof is optimized ; The content of the optimized structural system includes the layout of the structural system, the establishment of the calculation model, the optimization of internal support system, the calculation of kinds of members, etc.; The integrity of the roof are enhanced after optimization, and more accord with the concrete shell space structure characteristics, and provided a convenient for the big water construction. Compared to the traditional roof, the optimized roof save about 30% of the costs.Keywords:
Structural system
The multi-premise problem is an important research field of decision making and its optimal decision reflects the state of the art research of decision theory.Many methods can achieve it in multi-premise decision making,and each method has its own difficulties.This paper first introduced a new concept-premise set,proposed an algorithm to decompose premise set into the simplest form,and proved that the algorithm outputs minimal,non-complete premise sets for any given goal.Next the credibility of each premise was defined for measuring the difficulty of premise set,and the optimal premise set was recommended for the goal.Then this paper gave a formal description of the logical framework O for evaluation of multiple-premise,and proved its computability and reasoning faculty.Finally,a prototype of framework O was implemented in Prolog and its soundness was proved via experiments and application in software engineering.
Soundness
Cite
Citations (0)
The diversity effect during category-based induction (CBI) means that the more diverse the evidence, the higher will be the conclusion's inductive strength. However, it is influenced by the premise typicality. Three competitive cognitive processing models account for this influence: (1) The pre-emptive conflict resolution model assumes that only premise typicality activates; (2) the parallel-competitive model assumes that premise typicality and diversity activate in parallel; and (3) the default-interventionist model assumes that a default response of premise diversity first activates and is subsequently followed by premise typicality, or premise typicality activates first, followed by premise diversity. The timing of premise typicality affecting the diversity effect during CBI was measured using event-related potentials to determine which cognitive model best explains this influence. Similar to previous studies, non-diverse premise inductive tasks involving two typical premise categories were compared with diverse premise inductive tasks involving a typical and an atypical category. The results showed that non-diverse conditions had higher "correct" response proportions, greater inductive strength, higher "definitely" response proportions, and shorter reaction times than diverse conditions, showing that premise typicality weakens the diversity effect. Moreover, the diverse premises elicited larger P2, smaller FN400, and greater frontal post-N400-positivity amplitudes than non-diverse premises, suggesting that premise diversity was facilitated during a relatively early time window and revised by premise typicality in a later window. These results support the default-interventionist in nature during thinking and reasoning.
Cite
Citations (1)
The Role of Explanation Coherence of Two Premises on Property Induction Kyung Soo Do (ksdo@skku.edu) Ju Hwa Park (jhpark@skku.edu) Department of Psychology, Sungkyunkwan University Seoul 110-745, KOREA Abstract Three experiments on property induction were conducted to explore whether an incoherent premise discounted the believability of the conclusion when there were two premises. In all three experiments, a single premise increased or decreased the likelihood of the conclusion depending on the nature of explanatory coherence of a premise and a conclusion. However, when there were two premises, one that shared the reason with the conclusion (coherent premise), and one that does not (incoherent premise), the believability of the conclusion was affected differently in three experiments. When two premises and the conclusion were presented simultaneously in Experiment 1, the believability of the conclusion was increased. That is, an incoherent premise did not seem to affect the believability of the conclusion as much as the coherent premise. The incoherent premise seemed to decrease the believability of the conclusion a little bit when the two premises and the conclusion were presented sequentially so that each premise was not ignored in Experiment 2. The incoherent premise decreased the believability of the conclusion below the baseline condition in Experiment 3, where participants were asked to write down reasons for each premise being true. Results of three experiments suggested that only the confirming evidences were processed under natural conditions. A few possible theoretical implications were considered. Introduction When someone asks a question whether a target object has a certain property (target property), such as “Does an ostrich lay eggs?”, and you do not know the answer, you might induce the answer by checking whether some object (source object), usually objects that are similar to the target object, has the target property. In the ostrich example, you would answer “yes” if you think ostriches are similar to geese and know that geese lay eggs. As this example shows, what conclusion you make depends on what objects are used as source objects. What object is an effective source object in property induction depends on a number of factors: The nature of the target property, the level of knowledge of the person, and the cultural background of the person, to name a few. People used different source objects depending on their knowledge and occupation (Proffitt, Coley, & Medin, 2000). Also there seems to be a culture difference in property induction (Choi, Nisbett, & Smith, 1997). Even though the level of knowledge and the cultural background of the person affect the property induction, the effect of the nature of the target property on property induction has been the focus of most research. More specifically, what objects are effective as source objects in inducing two types of properties, and how the information of the source objects are used for property induction have been more widely investigated. There are two types of target properties, blank properties and nonblank properties, and the effectiveness of source objects seems to differ between the two types. The effectiveness of a source object seems to depend on the similarity between the target object and the source object for blank properties for which we do not have any other information to rely on (e.g., 'have BCC in blood') (Osherson, Smith, Wilkie, Lopez, & Shafir, 1990; Rips, 1975; Sloman, 1993). However, the similarity between the target object and the source object does not seem to work for nonblank properties for which we have other information to infer about the target object having the target property (e.g., 'can cut the wire') (Smith, Shafir, & Osherson, 1993). As the relationship between objects and the target property are diverse (Murphy & Medin, 1985), there are many ways of inducing nonblank properties: People seem to use other relevant information, such as body size or strength, in inducing nonblank properties (Smith et al., 1993). People rated the believability of the conclusion differently when the target property is about shape from when the target property is about behavior (Heit & Rubinstein, 1994). One way of inducing nonblank properties is comparing the reason for the target object having the target property with the reason for the source object having the target property. Sloman (1994, 1997) proposed that the explanation coherence between the premise and the conclusion affect the plausibility of the conclusion. If the target object and the source object share the same explanation, informing the participants that the source object has the target property increases the believability of the conclusion that the target object has the target property. For instance, computer programmers and secretaries have bad backs because they sit all day long. Therefore, informing the participants that “Computer programmers have bad backs” would make the conclusion “Secretaries have bad backs” more plausible than when the participants are not informed about the computer programmers having bad backs. However, if the target object and the source object do not share the same reason, informing the participants that the source object has the target property decreases the believability of the conclusion that the target object has the target property. In the bad back example, for instance, furniture movers had bad backs because they lift heavy things. Therefore, informing that “Furniture movers had bad backs” would make the conclusion “Secretaries
Cite
Citations (0)
Cite
Citations (1)
This study is aimed to describe deductive reasoning e of Junior High School Students in solving geometry problem based on gender difference. Deductive reasoning in this study refers to general premise, specific premise, conclusion drawing. The subjects of this study are two Junior High School Students. The technique of collecting data applied in this study are task giving and interview. The result of the study would be presented as follows: (1) deductive reasoning e of the male student; at the planning phase for solving problem, subject could formulate general premise and mention the premises which were used to solve the given problem. Subject could also formulate specific premise by giving logical premise referring to general premise based given problem, and he could draw conclusion by determining the strategy firstly to solve the given problem. At the executing planning phase for solving the problem, subject could formulate general premise using premises in order to solve the given problem. Subject could also formulate specific premise by determining logical premise referring to general premise based given problem, and he could draw conclusion using general and specific premise that had been proved. (2) Deductive reasoning e of the female student; at the planning phase for solving problem, subject could formulate general premise by mentioning the premises which were used to solve the given problem. Subject could also formulate specific premise by giving logical premise referring to general premise based given problem, and he could draw conclusion by determining the strategy firstly to solve the given problem. At the executing planning phase for solving the problem, subject could formulate general premise using premises which were used to solve the given problem. Moreover, subject could not formulate specific premises and the way he drew the conclusion was contradictive to the strategy he determined at the planning phase for solving problem.
Deductive method
Cite
Citations (5)
To achieve many professional goals, scientists and engineers must provide a logical written argument, in order to convince others of the importance of achieving these goals. This chapter discusses higher levels of argument: combining paragraphs to argue for a premise and combining premises to argue for a thesis. It examines some of the premises that might be used to argue for three types of theses: attaining funding for a research proposal; publishing an article in a journal; and attracting investors to a new enterprise. The chapter presents three examples of arguing for a premise—using one premise from each of the three types of theses listed above—with attention to the paragraphs that support the premise. In the examples, the chapter identifies the premise, lists the points that support the premise, presents the set of paragraphs that argue for each point, and shows how the premise fits within the larger argument.
Argument (complex analysis)
Proposition
Cite
Citations (0)
Introduction 1. Anxiety: From Premise - to Practice 2. Beliefs: From Premise - to Practice 3. Cognitive Abilities: From Premise - to Practice 4. Motivation: From Premise - to Practice 5. Learning Strategies: From Premise - to Practice 6. Learning Styles: From Premise - to Practice 7. Willingness to Communicate: From Premise - to Practice Epilogue
Cite
Citations (75)
The purpose of this study was to investigate preschoolers' ability in judging the plausibility of arguments in Category Based Induction. Experiment 1 was conducted to clarify whether five- and six-year-old children could judge plausibility of general arguments by analyzing the inclusive category of conclusion. The effect of premise typicality, premise diversity, and premise monotonicity of general arguments were examined for this purpose. All the three premise effects were found in six-year-old children, while only the effect of premise monotonicity was found in five-year-old children. In Experiment 2, the effect of premise non-monotonicity was tested to clarify whether children could judge plausibility of arguments by recognizing an inclusion relationship between premise and conclusion categories. The effect of premise non-monotonicity was found in five-year-old children, though it was not perfect. The results of the two experiments suggest that development of Category Based Induction can be divided into two stages. At first, “category based” induction, which means that children can judge plausibility of arguments by recognizing inclusion relationship between premise and conclusion categories, is established from five to six. Later, “category structure based” induction, which means that children can judge plausibility of arguments based on analysis of inclusive category of conclusion, is achieved six and above.
Judgement
Cite
Citations (0)
There are two defects in previous research on the logical premise to Chinalized Maxism,first,the logical premise to Chinalized Maxism has been taken for granted and not been raised as a question;second,opinions expressed still leave much to be discussed.This paper insists that the logical premise to Chinalized Maxism is open to question and argues with rationale that be the logical premise.Causes of the malfunction of common sense are analyzed and suggestions for its full play proposed in the end.
Logical analysis
Logical conjunction
Logical reasoning
Cite
Citations (0)
We conducted three experiments to examine the effects of the underlying premise of a message on subsequent issue agreement, perceptions of the message and source, subjects' cognitive responses, and attitudes toward related but nonmentioned issues. In all experiments, subjects who read a message based on an acceptable premise were subsequently more in favor of the message recommendation than were subjects who read an identical message with a less acceptable premise. In Experiment 3, this effect also occurred for attitudes toward proposals that were not mentioned in the message. In contrast, premise acceptability did not have a reliable effect on perceptions of the message and source, and had only a small effect on subjects' cognitive responses. This suggests that the effect of premise acceptability on issue agreement is primarily the result of a tendency to maintain consistency between beliefs in a premise and logically related proposals.
Cite
Citations (3)