Java Deep Learning Cookbook Train Neural

Networks For Classification Nlp And

Reinforcement Learning Using Deeplearning4j 1st
Edition Rahul Raj download
https://ebookbell.com/product/java-deep-learning-cookbook-train-
neural-networks-for-classification-nlp-and-reinforcement-
learning-using-deeplearning4j-1st-edition-rahul-raj-10571832

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Java Deep Learning Cookbook Rahul Raj

https://ebookbell.com/product/java-deep-learning-cookbook-rahul-
raj-170427126

Java Deep Learning Essentials 1st Edition Sugomori Yusuke

https://ebookbell.com/product/java-deep-learning-essentials-1st-
edition-sugomori-yusuke-55587910

Java Deep Learning Projects Implement 10 Realworld Deep Learning

Applications Using Deeplearning4j And Open Source Apis Paperback Md
Rezaul Karim

https://ebookbell.com/product/java-deep-learning-projects-
implement-10-realworld-deep-learning-applications-using-
deeplearning4j-and-open-source-apis-paperback-md-rezaul-karim-10441888

Java Deep Learning Projects Implement 10 Realworld Deep Learning

Applications Using Deeplearning4j And Open Source Apis Md Rezaul Karim

https://ebookbell.com/product/java-deep-learning-projects-
implement-10-realworld-deep-learning-applications-using-
deeplearning4j-and-open-source-apis-md-rezaul-karim-49849722
Java Deep Learning Essentials 1st Edition Yusuke Sugomori

https://ebookbell.com/product/java-deep-learning-essentials-1st-
edition-yusuke-sugomori-6770078

Handson Java Deep Learning For Computer Vision Implement Machine

Learning And Neural Network Methodologies To Perform Computer
Visionrelated Tasks Klevis Ramo

https://ebookbell.com/product/handson-java-deep-learning-for-computer-
vision-implement-machine-learning-and-neural-network-methodologies-to-
perform-computer-visionrelated-tasks-klevis-ramo-9994594

Deep Learning Practical Neural Networks With Java Sugomori Yusuke

https://ebookbell.com/product/deep-learning-practical-neural-networks-
with-java-sugomori-yusuke-55588296

Deep Learning Practical Neural Networks With Java Yusuke Sugomori

Bostjan Kaluza Fabio M Soares Alan M F Souza Sugomori

https://ebookbell.com/product/deep-learning-practical-neural-networks-
with-java-yusuke-sugomori-bostjan-kaluza-fabio-m-soares-alan-m-f-
souza-sugomori-35494516

Deep Learning Practical Neural Networks With Java Yusuke Sugomori

Bostjan Kaluza Fabio M Soares Souza

https://ebookbell.com/product/deep-learning-practical-neural-networks-
with-java-yusuke-sugomori-bostjan-kaluza-fabio-m-soares-souza-36189320
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
 9. REVIEW QUESTIONS.
(1) Name and explain the two standpoints from which all
arguments must be viewed.

(2) Give an outline of procedure which may be serviceable in the

testing of categorical arguments.

(3) Give illustrations showing that the logical order of categorical

arguments is not the usual mode of procedure in common
parlance.

(4) Offer suggestions which may aid in designating a premise; a

conclusion.

(5) How would you proceed in forming any one of the three
propositions of a syllogism when the other two are given?

(6) Designate the premises and the conclusion in the following,

supplying any proposition which may be omitted, also arrange
logically and test the validity.

(1) “The people of this country are suffering from an

overdose of prosperity; consequently a period of hard
times will be a valuable lesson.” (The conclusion should
be recast so as to read, “A period of hard times will
cure the people of this country.” The minor premise is,
“Those who suffer from an overdose of prosperity may
be cured by a period of hard times.”)
 (2) “I am a teacher; you are not what I am; hence you are
not a teacher.”

(3) “To kill a man is murder, therefore war is murder.”

(4) “You have not adopted the best policy since honesty
has always been and will always be the best policy.”

(5) “Since the road is criminally mismanaged, why should

not the authorities be indicted as criminals?”

(6) “Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy,

wealthy and wise. I am none of these; hence my
sleeping hours have been wrong.”

(7) Illustrate a weakened conclusion.

(8) Explain the exclusive proposition and indicate how the

logician should treat it.

(9) Arrange logically and test the following:

(1) Only weak men become intemperate, and Edgar Allen

Poe was surely intemperate.

(2) No admittance except on business; hence you cannot

be admitted.

(3) Virtuous acts are praiseworthy, and indiscriminate

giving is not a virtuous act.

(10) Explain why individual propositions are classed as universal.

(11) Write an argument whose major premise is a partitive

proposition; arrange logically and test validity.

(12) Arrange and test this argument: “Blessed are the poor in
spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
(13) Complete, arrange and test.

(1) “The object of war is to settle disputes; hence soldiers

are the best peacemakers.”

(2) “The various species of brutes being created to prey

upon one another proves that man is intended to prey
upon them.”

(3) “The end of everything is its perfection; death being

the end of life is its perfection.”

(4) “All the trees of the yard make a thick shade and this is
one of them.”

(5) “Minds of moderate caliber ordinarily condemn

everything which is beyond their range, and his is such
a mind.”

(6) “The best of all medicines are fresh air and sleep, and
you are sorely in need of both.”

(7) “Every hen comes from an egg; every egg comes from
a hen; therefore every egg comes from an egg.”

(8) “He cannot have been there—otherwise I should have

seen him.”

(14) “It is fair to give the author the benefit of the doubt when we
set ourselves up as censors worthy of the name.” Explain this.

(15) Illustrate by citing arguments the need of detecting terms

which are equivalents in signification.

(16) How does the logician look upon number and tense as treated
in grammar?
(17) Illustrate and test an argument in which one of the premises
is elliptical.

(18) Summarize the most common mistakes made by students in

the testing of categorical arguments; illustrate these mistakes
and then write in logical form.
10. QUESTIONS FOR ORIGINAL
THOUGHT AND
INVESTIGATION.
(1) Give illustrations of arguments which are valid in form but
invalid in meaning. Explain.

(2) May an argument be valid in meaning but invalid in form?

Exemplify.

(3) Put a simple problem in arithmetic in syllogistic form and

show that the minor premise naturally comes first.

(4) In the practice of law is there any custom analogous to giving

the author the benefit of the doubt in logical argumentation?

(5) Test in detail the following arguments:

(1) “All wise presidents strive to give heed to the demands

of the people, but this president has not done so.”

(2) “The existence of God is not universally believed,

hence it cannot be true.”

(3) “The institution has prospered under the present

régime therefore why change it?”

(4) “The man is guilty because seven out of the nine

witnesses so testified.”
 (5) “I know three men who cleared not less than ten
thousand dollars in this business; and why cannot I do
as much?”

(6) “Only members may vote and, since you are not a member,
you will not be allowed to vote.” Change the exclusive in this
argument in the two ways suggested in Chapter 8, page 126.
Test the argument in both cases.

(7) Show by illustration that the quantity sign “all” when used
with “not” may in some cases mean “no” and in others
“some-not”.

(8) Make two selections from some poet of authority representing

arguments with an inverted premise.

(9) Select from news papers three arguments which seem to

illustrate the fallacy of four terms but which in reality do not.
Explain.

(10) Wherein could the elliptical proposition lead to error?

(11) Put the following in syllogistic form and test:

(1) “That persons may reason without language is proven

by the circumstances that infants reason and yet have
no language.”

(2) “The scriptures cannot come from God because they

contain some things which cannot be comprehended
by man.”

(3) “When Columbus was sailing the ocean in search of a

new world, he fell in with a flock of land birds and
concluded that he could not be far from land.”
(4) “Bolingbroke in arguing against the truth of the
Christian religion shows that the Christian religion has
bred contentions.” “Burke answered him by showing
that civil government had bred contentions.”
 CHAPTER 15.

HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENTS, AND

DISJUNCTIVE ARGUMENTS INCLUDING THE
DILEMMA.

1. THREE KINDS OF
ARGUMENTS.
The proposition, constituting the basic unit of the argument,
would of necessity be indicative of the nature of said argument;
therefore the three general kinds of propositions, categorical,
hypothetical and disjunctive, suggest the three kinds of arguments
which are in turn categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive.
Categorical arguments are those in which all of the propositions are
categorical. Since this kind has been treated, it remains for us to
consider the other two.
 2. HYPOTHETICAL
ARGUMENTS.
We have observed that a hypothetical proposition is one in which
the assertion depends on a condition; for example, in the
proposition, “If it is pleasant, I will call on you to-morrow,” the
calling depends on the state of the weather. “I will call on you to-
morrow,” is the assertion which is limited by the condition, “If the
weather is pleasant.” Definition:

The hypothetical argument or syllogism is one in which the major

premise is hypothetical and the minor premise categorical.

ILLUSTRATION:
If the people are right more than half of the time, the world will
progress;

And the people are right more than half of the time,

Hence the world will progress.

In contradistinction to disjunctives, hypothetical propositions and

hypothetical syllogisms are frequently referred to as “conjunctive.”
 3. THE ANTECEDENT AND
CONSEQUENT.
Facility in detecting the antecedent and consequent of
hypotheticals is required in order to deal intelligently with the
argument. The hypothetical proposition has been defined as one in
which the assertion is limited by a condition. The consequent is the
assertion and usually follows (though not always) the antecedent
which is the limiting condition. First the antecedent and then the
consequent is the logical order as the derivative meaning of the
words antecedent and consequent would indicate. The antecedent is
introduced by such words as “if,” “though,” “unless,” “suppose,”
“granted that,” “when,” etc.

ILLUSTRATIONS:
Antecedent. Consequent.
1. If you study, you will pass.
2. If it rains, it is cloudy.
3. If two is added to three, the result is five.
4. If you are temperate, you will live to a ripe old
age.
Consequent. Antecedent.
5. I will go, unless you wire me to the
contrary.
6. I will pay you, when you present your bill.
7. I shall make the trip in ten granted that I have no
hours, accidents.
8. My overcoat would not have if the door had been
been stolen, locked.
 4. TWO KINDS OF
HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENTS.
The two kinds of hypothetical syllogisms are the constructive and
destructive.

A constructive hypothetical syllogism is one in which the minor

premise affirms the antecedent.

A destructive hypothetical syllogism is one in which the minor

premise denies the consequent.

The constructive hypothetical is sometimes referred to as the

“modus ponens”; whereas the destructive hypothetical is called the
“modus tollens.”

ILLUSTRATIONS:
Constructive Hypothetical Syllogisms.
Symbols. Words.
If A is B, C is D If you are diligent, you will succeed;
A is B And you are diligent,
∴ C is D Therefore you will succeed.
Destructive Hypothetical Syllogisms.
If A is B, C is D If you had been diligent, you would have
succeeded;
C is not D But you did not succeed,
∴ A is not B Therefore you were not diligent.
 5. THE RULE AND TWO
FALLACIES OF THE
HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT.
From a given hypothetical proposition it is possible to construct
four different hypothetical syllogisms, as the attending illustrations
make evident:

Consider the hypothetical proposition “If it has rained, the ground

is damp.”

(1) Minor premise affirms antecedent.

If it has rained, the ground is damp;

It has rained,

Therefore the ground is damp.

(2) Minor premise denies antecedent.

If it has rained, the ground is damp;

It has not rained,

Therefore the ground is not damp.

(3) Minor premise affirms consequent.

If it has rained, the ground is damp;

 The ground is damp,

Therefore it has rained.

(4) Minor premise denies the consequent.

If it has rained, the ground is damp;

The ground is not damp,

Therefore it has not rained.

Without any knowledge of the rules of the hypothetical syllogism

let us strive to determine how many of the foregoing are valid.
Relative to the first, it would be impossible for any rain to fall
without making the ground somewhat damp; a few drops would be
sufficient. In short, if the antecedent happens, the consequent must
follow. It seems, therefore, that the first argument is valid.
Considering the second: rain is not the only cause for the dampness
of the ground, as it might result from the falling of dew, or from a
dense fog; no rain does not necessarily mean no dampness. It is
clear that if the antecedent does not happen, the consequent may or
may not follow. Thus it appears that the second argument is invalid.
Attention to the third makes evident a condition similar to the
second: the ground may be made damp by agencies other than rain,
such as fog and dew. Thus the third argument is likewise invalid. But
in the fourth argument it is obvious that if the ground is not damp,
then there could have been neither rain, nor fog, nor dew. No
dampness shuts out all of the conditions, including the rain.
Therefore the fourth argument is valid.

This investigation suggests a rule for hypothetical arguments.

Since only the first and fourth arguments are valid, this is the rule
which must obtain: The minor premise should either affirm the
antecedent or deny the consequent.
 Any violation of this rule would result in the fallacies of denying
the antecedent or affirming the consequent.

There is one exception to this rule which must not be overlooked;

viz.: If the antecedent and consequent of the hypothetical
proposition are co-extensive then both may be either affirmed or
denied.

ILLUSTRATIONS:
(1) If the rectangle is equilateral, then it is a square;

The rectangle is equilateral,

∴ It is a square.

(2) If the rectangle is equilateral, then it is a square;

The rectangle is not equilateral,

∴ The rectangle is not a square.

(3) If the rectangle is equilateral, then it is a square;

It is a square,

∴ The rectangle is equilateral.

(4) If the rectangle is equilateral, then it is a square;

It is not a square,

∴ The rectangle is not equilateral.

 6. HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENTS
REDUCED TO THE
CATEGORICAL FORM.
The hypothetical syllogism so closely resembles the categorical
that it may be changed to it by a slight alteration in the wording.
After testing the hypothetical by its own rule, it may be expedient to
reduce the argument to the categorical form, and subject it to a
second test in which the categorical rules are applied. This reduction
usually necessitates two steps; first, change the propositions which
represent the antecedent and consequent to a subject term and a
predicate term respectively and then unite them to form the major
premise; second, supply a new minor term, if necessary.

Illustrations of Reduction; and Comparison of Hypothetical and

Categorical Fallacies:

Hypothetical Form:

(1) If it has rained, the ground is damp;

It has rained,

∴ The ground is damp.

Categorical Form:

M G
A The falling rain makes the ground damp,
 S M
A In this case rain has fallen,

S G
A ∴ In this case the ground is damp ground.

It is seen that the argument in the hypothetical form is valid as

the minor premise affirms the antecedent. Reducing to the
A
categorical gives to the argument the mode A in the first figure
A
which we know to be valid.

Hypothetical:

(2) If one were wise, he would study;

But you will not study,

∴ You are not wise.

Categorical:

G M
A A wise person would study,

S M
E ∴ You will not study,

S G
E ∴ You are not wise.

In the hypothetical form the argument is valid since the minor

premise denies the consequent. Reducing to the categorical gives
A
mood E in the second figure. This is valid.
E
 Hypothetical:

(3) If the wind blows from the south, it will rain;

But the wind is not blowing from the south,

Hence it is not going to rain.

Categorical:

M G
A South wind brings rain,

S M
E This wind is not a south wind,

S G
E ∴ This wind will not bring rain.

Hypothetically considered, the minor premise denies the

antecedent and consequently the argument is invalid. Reducing to
the categorical form, it is found that the major term is distributed in
the conclusion, but is not distributed in the major premise; hence
the fallacy of illicit major is committed.

Hypothetical:

(4) If a man is just, he will obey the golden rule;

This judge has obeyed the golden rule,

Hence he is just.

Categorical:

G M
A A just man will obey the golden rule,
 S M
A This judge has obeyed the golden rule,

S G
A ∴ This judge is a just man.

Hypothetically considered, the minor premise affirms the

consequent and thus the argument is fallacious; when changed to
the categorical we find the fallacy of undistributed middle. If other
examples were taken, it could be proved that the hypothetical fallacy
of denying the antecedent is usually equivalent to the categorical
fallacy of illicit major; whereas the hypothetical fallacy of affirming
the consequent amounts to undistributed middle.

In reducing some hypotheticals it is necessary to make use of

such expressions as, “the case of” or “the circumstances that.” The
attending argument will illustrate this:

If Jefferson was right, man was created free and equal;

(but) Man was not created free and equal,

∴ Jefferson was not right.

Reduced to the categorical:

G
The case of Jefferson being right is the case of man being
M
created free and equal;

S M
Man was not created free and equal,

A G
∴ Jefferson (this man) was not right.
The argument is valid in both cases.
 7. ILLUSTRATIVE EXERCISE
TESTING HYPOTHETICAL
ARGUMENTS OF ALL KINDS.
The following brief outline may be followed in testing
hypothetical arguments:

1. Arrange logically.

2. Determine antecedent and consequent.

3. Apply the hypothetical rule; name fallacies giving reasons.

4. Reduce to categorical form.

5. Apply the categorical rules, giving fallacies with reasons.

(1) If a man is properly educated, he will not despise manual

labor;

therefore I conclude that you have not been properly

educated,

since you dislike to work with your hands.

Arranged logically and antecedent and consequent indicated:

If a man is properly educated (antecedent), he will not

despise manual labor (consequent);
 You despise manual labor (dislike to work with your hands),

∴ You have not been properly educated.

The minor premise denies the consequent, hence the argument is

valid according to the rule, “The minor premise must affirm the
antecedent or deny the consequent.” The student should note that
the consequent is negative and therefore its denial must be an
affirmative proposition.

Reduced to the categorical:

G M
E A properly educated man will not despise manual labor;

S M
A You despise manual labor,

S G
E ∴ You have not been properly educated.

Regarded categorically this is valid. Why?

(2) “If one believes in the tenets of the democratic party, then he
should vote for its candidates; and since A does believe in them
I have asked him to vote for me.”

Arranged, and antecedent and consequent indicated.

If one believes in the tenets of the democratic party

(antecedent), then he should vote for its candidates
(consequent);

And A does believe in these tenets,

∴ He should vote for its candidates (I have asked him to vote

for me).
The minor premise affirms the antecedent and thus the argument is
valid according to rule.

Reduced to the categorical:

M
One who believes in the tenets of the democratic
A party
M
should vote for its candidates,

S M
A A believes in these tenets,

S G
A ∴ A should vote for its candidates.

A
Reduced to the categorical gives mood A in the first figure and this
A
we know to be valid.

(3) “If the weather had not been pleasant, I could not have
come; but as the weather is pleasant, here I am.”

Arranged and antecedent and consequent indicated:

If the weather had not been pleasant (antecedent), I could

not have come (consequent);

The weather is pleasant,

∴ I have come (here I am).

The minor premise denies the antecedent and consequently the

argument is invalid according to the rule. (An affirmative minor
premise denies a negative antecedent.)
 Reduced to the categorical:

E Unpleasant weather would not permit me to come,

E This weather is not unpleasant,

A ∴ This weather enabled me to come.

Fallacy of two negative premises.

(4) “If one pays his debts, he will not be ‘black-listed’; but since
you are ‘black-listed,’ I conclude that you have not paid your debts.”

Arranged logically and antecedent and consequent indicated:

If one pays his debts (antecedent), he will not be “black-

listed” (consequent);

You are “black-listed,”

∴ You have not paid your debts.

The minor premise denies the consequent hence the argument is

valid.

Reduced to categorical form:

G M
E No one who pays his debts is black listed,

S M
A You are black listed,

S G
E ∴ You have not paid your debts.
 E
The mood A in the second figure is valid.
E

(5) “Men would do right for the sake of themselves, if they

appreciated the law of retribution; but they never think of that.”

Arranged, completed, and tested:

If they appreciated the law of retribution (antecedent), men

would do right for the sake of themselves (consequent);

But they do not appreciate the law of retribution (never think of

that),

Hence they do not do right for the sake of themselves.

Fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Reduced to the categorical:

M
A The case of men appreciating the law of retribution, is
G
the case of men doing right for the sake of
themselves;

S M
E But men do not appreciate the law of retribution,

S G
E ∴ Men do not do right for the sake of themselves.

Fallacy of illicit major.

(6) “If an animal is a vertebrate, then it must have a backbone;

but the books say that this animal is not a vertebrate, hence it
cannot have a backbone.”
 Since the minor premise denies the antecedent it would appear
that the argument is invalid; yet common knowledge and common
sense dictate that the conclusion is true. Surely no invertebrate can
have a backbone. As a matter of fact the antecedent and
consequent are co-extensive and therefore the hypothetical rule is
not applicable.

Reduced to the categorical:

M G
A Vertebrates must have a backbone (Co-extensive),

S M
E This animal is not a vertebrate,

S G
E ∴ This animal cannot have a backbone.

As co-extensive A’s distribute their predicates the possibility of there

being a fallacy of illicit major is forestalled.

Categorically considered the argument is likewise valid.

 8. DISJUNCTIVE ARGUMENTS.
It has been observed that a disjunctive proposition is one which
expresses an alternative. A disjunctive syllogism is one in which the
major premise is a disjunctive proposition.

ILLUSTRATION:
The boy is either honest or dishonest,

He is honest,

∴ He is not dishonest.
 9. THE TWO KINDS OF
DISJUNCTIVE ARGUMENTS.
The two forms of disjunctive arguments are the one which by
affirming denies and the one which by denying affirms. The former
is known by the Latin words “modus ponendo tollens”; while the
latter is termed the “modus tollendo ponens.”

ILLUSTRATIONS:
(1) By affirming denies.

The defendant is either guilty or innocent,

He is guilty,

∴ He is not innocent.

or

The defendant is either guilty or innocent,

He is innocent,

∴ He is not guilty.

(2) By denying affirms.

The defendant is either guilty or innocent,

 He is not guilty,

∴ He is innocent.

or

The defendant is either guilty or innocent,

He is not innocent,

∴ He is guilty.
 10. THE FIRST RULE OF
DISJUNCTIVE ARGUMENTS.
It may be said that disjunctive arguments depend on two rules.
This is the first: The major premise must assert a logical disjunction.
A logical disjunction involves two requisites; first, the alternatives
must be mutually exclusive; second, the enumeration must be
complete.

Illustrations of illogical major premise.

Terms not mutually exclusive:

This boy is either inattentive or indolent,

He is not inattentive,

∴ He is indolent.

It is obvious that the boy might be both inattentive and indolent.

Experience teaches that the qualities are usually concurrent, and to
assume that the boy must be either one or the other is a clear case
of “begging the question.”

Some logicians maintain that “either—or” signify that both

alternatives cannot be false, but that both may be true. If this
viewpoint were adopted, the major premise of the illustration would
not be a case of begging the question. It is unnecessary to argue
the point, if it is made perfectly clear which view is to obtain in this
discussion. Briefly stated the two points are these. First opinion:
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com