{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015151515151515152, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.715254237288136, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Indian logic-based argument representation formalism for knowledge-sharing

Knowledge-sharing is the fundamental aspect of learning from ancient days. By exchanging questions and answers in a debate fashion, knowledge is explored. Argumentation can be thought of as a knowledge-sharing mechanism where construction of arguments and counter-arguments towards reaching mutually agreed upon conclusions is modelled after the rational discussion of knowledge-sharing. The procedural approach of generation and exchange of arguments is with the intention of reaching a definite conclusion at the end of discussion irrespective of the winning or losing of the individual arguments. A procedural argumentation system for knowledge-sharing, similar to the one discussed above will be of immense use only when the representational facts of world knowledge are well captured and represented as identical with the representation of natural intelligence. Indian Philosophy suggests various rules for classifying and representing the world knowledge to enhance the procedure of argumentation in reaching new inferences. This paper discusses a new mathematical model that caters to the special requirements of classification and hypothetical argumentative reasoning (tarka) of Indian philosophy. The main focus is the emphasis given to the existence of relations between concepts and foundation of invariable connection between concepts/relations of the arguments that is indicated by the philosophy. The extracted knowledge from the arguments exchanged is captured using ‘Indianised logics’, an Indian Logic based argument representation formalism. The arguments are deeply analysed for the presence of conceptual and relational conflicts. This is achieved by referring to the presence and/or absence of invariable concomitance, so that, the decision of justifying the represented invalid knowledge with or without proof shall be made clear in knowledge-sharing through rational discussion.