John Ross Quinlan is a computer science researcher in data mining and decision theory. He has contributed extensively to the development of decision tree algorithms, including inventing the canonical C4.5 and ID3 algorithms. He also contributed to early ILP literature with First Order Inductive Learner (FOIL). He is currently running the company RuleQuest Research which he founded in 1997. == Education == He received his BSc degree in Physics and Computing from the University of Sydney in 1965 and his computer science doctorate at the University of Washington in 1968. He has held positions at the University of New South Wales, University of Sydney, University of Technology Sydney, and RAND Corporation. == Artificial intelligence == Quinlan is a specialist in artificial intelligence, particularly in the aspect involving machine learning and its application to data mining. He is a Founding Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. === ID3 === Ross Quinlan invented the Iterative Dichotomiser 3 (ID3) algorithm which is used to generate decision trees. ID3 follows the principle of Occam's razor in attempting to create the smallest decision tree possible. === C4.5 === He then expanded upon the principles used in ID3 to create C4.5. C4.5 improved: discrete and continuous attributes, missing attribute values, attributes with differing costs, pruning trees (replacing irrelevant branches with leaf nodes). === C5.0 === C5.0, which Quinlan is commercially selling (single-threaded version is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License), is an improvement on C4.5. The advantages are speed (several orders of magnitude faster), memory efficiency, smaller decision trees, boosting (more accuracy), ability to weight different attributes, and winnowing (reducing noise). == Selected works == === Books === 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. ISBN 1-55860-238-0. === Articles === Quinlan, J. R. (1982) Semi-autonomous acquisition of pattern-based knowledge, In Machine intelligence 10 (eds J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, and Y.-H. Pao). Ellis Norwood,Chichester. Quinlan, J.R. (1985). Decision trees and multi-valued attributes, In J.E. Hayes & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 11. Oxford University Press. Quinlan, J. R. (1986). Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1(1):81-106 2008. (with Qiang Yang, Philip S. Yu, Zhou Zhihua, and David Hand et al). Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowledge and Information Systems 14.1: 1-37 Quinlan, J. R. (1990). Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5:239-266.
International Road Traffic and Accident Database
The International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD) is an initiative dedicated to compiling and analyzing global road crash data. It is managed by the International Transport Forum (ITF) under the auspices of its permanent working group, which specializes in road safety, commonly referred to as the IRTAD Group. The primary objective of IRTAD is to provide a robust empirical basis for international comparisons in the field of road safety and to offer data to support the formulation of effective road safety policies. == Data availability == A portion of the data gathered by IRTAD is accessible for free through the OECD statistics website, however the remaining data requires a subscription for access. == History == The IRTAD database was originally started in 1988 by Germany's Federal Institution for Roads (BASt) in response to demands for international comparative data. It was later taken over and expanded by the International Transport Forum and has grown to be an important resource for comparing road safety metrics between countries worldwide, although mostly in the developed world. Every year, the ITF publishes comparative and country-by-country road safety data gathered for the IRTAD database and analysed by the IRTAD Group in the ITF Road Safety Annual Report, informally known as "IRTAD Report". Over the years, the IRTAD acronym has come to stand not only for the database, but also for the Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group (usually referred to as IRTAD Group). The IRTAD Group is the International Transport Forum's permanent working group on road safety. It consists of a group of international road safety experts drawn from national road administrations, road safety research institutes, International organizations, automobile associations, insurance companies, car manufacturers and other road safety stakeholders. The IRTAD Group is a major forum for international road safety collaboration and exchange of best practices. Its focus is on improving road safety data as a basis for targeting interventions that are effective in reducing the number of road deaths and serious traffic injuries. The work of IRTAD, among that of others, has spawned the creation of road safety observatories for different world regions: the Ibero-American Road Safety Observatory Archived 2020-06-28 at the Wayback Machine (OISEVI), the African Road Safety Observatory Archived 2020-06-10 at the Wayback Machine, and the South-East Asian Road Safety Observatory. The ITF supports OISEVI through the Spanish-language IRTAD-LAC database and is actively involved in the implementation of the African and South East-Asian observatories. The genesis of the road safety observatory movement dates back to 2008, when the ITF, via IRTAD, began to facilitate twinning between countries striving to improve their road safety record and countries with high road safety performance. The initial twinning was between Jamaica and the United Kingdom. This work was supported by the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) and the FIA Foundation. The twinning between Argentina and Spain in 2011 led to the creation of OISEVI. To this day, the ITF supports OISEVI through the Spanish-language IRTAD-LAC database. In 2006, the ITF set up Safer City Streets, a global traffic safety network for cities that replicates the successful IRTAD approach for urban road safety.
Fuzzy differential equation
Fuzzy differential equation are general concept of ordinary differential equation in mathematics defined as differential inclusion for non-uniform upper hemicontinuity convex set with compactness in fuzzy set. d x ( t ) / d t = F ( t , x ( t ) , α ) , {\displaystyle dx(t)/dt=F(t,x(t),\alpha ),} for all α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,1]} . == First order fuzzy differential equation == A first order fuzzy differential equation with real constant or variable coefficients x ′ ( t ) + p ( t ) x ( t ) = f ( t ) {\displaystyle x'(t)+p(t)x(t)=f(t)} where p ( t ) {\displaystyle p(t)} is a real continuous function and f ( t ) : [ t 0 , ∞ ) → R F {\displaystyle f(t)\colon [t_{0},\infty )\rightarrow R_{F}} is a fuzzy continuous function y ( t 0 ) = y 0 {\displaystyle y(t_{0})=y_{0}} such that y 0 ∈ R F {\displaystyle y_{0}\in R_{F}} . == Linear systems of fuzzy differential equations == A system of equations of the form x ( t ) n ′ = a n 1 ( t ) x 1 ( t ) + . . . . . . + a n n ( t ) x n ( t ) + f n ( t ) {\displaystyle x(t)'_{n}=a_{n}1(t)x_{1}(t)+......+a_{n}n(t)x_{n}(t)+f_{n}(t)} where a i j {\displaystyle a_{i}j} are real functions and f i {\displaystyle f_{i}} are fuzzy functions x n ′ ( t ) = ∑ i = 0 1 a i j x i . {\displaystyle x'_{n}(t)=\sum _{i=0}^{1}a_{ij}x_{i}.} == Fuzzy partial differential equations == A fuzzy differential equation with partial differential operator is ∇ x ( t ) = F ( t , x ( t ) , α ) , {\displaystyle \nabla x(t)=F(t,x(t),\alpha ),} for all α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,1]} . == Fuzzy fractional differential equation == A fuzzy differential equation with fractional differential operator is d n x ( t ) d t n = F ( t , x ( t ) , α ) , {\displaystyle {\frac {d^{n}x(t)}{dt^{n}}}=F(t,x(t),\alpha ),} for all α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,1]} where n {\displaystyle n} is a rational number.
Sunspring
Sunspring is a 2016 experimental science fiction short film entirely written by an artificial intelligence bot using neural networks. It was conceived by BAFTA-nominated filmmaker Oscar Sharp and NYU AI researcher Ross Goodwin and produced by film production company, End Cue along with Allison Friedman and Andrew Swett. It stars Thomas Middleditch, Elisabeth Grey, and Humphrey Ker as three people, namely H, H2, and C, living in a future world and eventually connecting with each other through a love triangle. The script of the film was authored by a recurrent neural network called long short-term memory (LSTM) by an AI bot named Benjamin. Originally made for the Sci-Fi-London film festival's 48hr Challenge, it was released online by technology news website Ars Technica on 9 June 2016. == Premise == Sunspring narrates the story of three people - H (Middleditch), H2 (Grey), and C (Ker) - set in a futuristic world and entangled with murder and love. == Cast == Thomas Middleditch as H Elisabeth Grey as H2 Humphrey Ker as C == Production == Oscar Sharp originally created the film for the 48hr Film Challenge contest of Sci-Fi-London, a film festival which focuses on science fiction. For the challenge, contestants are given a set of prompts (mostly props and lines) that have to appear in a movie they make over the next two days. It eventually contested in the festival and was nominated among the final top ten films Sharp collaborated with his longtime associate Ross Goodwin, an AI researcher in New York University to create the AI bot, which was initially called Jetson. The bot, which later came to call itself Benjamin, wrote the screenplay including stage directions and dialog. The garbled script was then interpreted by Sharp who directed the actors to construe the plot points themselves and enact the play. According to Ars Technica, the final plot turned out to be a tale of romance and murder, set in a dark future world. === Benjamin, the automatic screenwriter === Called the world's first automatic screenwriter, Benjamin is a self-improving LSTM RNN machine intelligence trained on human screenplays conceived by Goodwin and Sharp. It was trained to write the screenplay by feeding it with a corpus of dozens of sci-fi screenplays found online—mostly movies from the 1980s and 90s. == Music == The film contains a song from Brooklyn-based electro-acoustic duo Tiger and Man, with lyrics written by Benjamin using a database of 30,000 folk songs. As well as a score written by composer Andrew Orkin. == Reception == CNet called it "a beautiful, bizarre sci-fi novelty." Critic Amanda Kooser said, "...probably won't start a rush for replacing human screenwriters with machines. Some day, neural networks may get better at imitating the art of coherent storytelling, but we're not there yet. That doesn't mean "Sunspring" isn't entertaining or worthy of viewing. It is. It's a thought experiment come to life, a novelty." As of April 2019, it has surpassed 1 million views on YouTube.
Machine ethics
Machine ethics (or machine morality, computational morality, or computational ethics) is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence concerned with adding or ensuring moral behaviors of man-made machines that use artificial intelligence (AI), otherwise known as AI agents. Machine ethics differs from other ethical fields related to engineering and technology. It should not be confused with computer ethics, which focuses on human use of computers. It should also be distinguished from the philosophy of technology, which concerns itself with technology's grander social effects. == Definitions == James H. Moor, one of the pioneering theoreticians in the field of computer ethics, defines four kinds of ethical robots. An extensive researcher on the studies of philosophy of artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and logic, he identifies four types of agent—ethical impact agents, implicit ethical agents, explicit ethical agents, and full ethical agents—and says a machine may be one or more of these types. Ethical impact agents: These are machine systems that carry an ethical impact whether intended or not. At the same time, they have the potential to act unethically. Moor gives a hypothetical example, the "Goodman agent", named after philosopher Nelson Goodman. The Goodman agent compares dates but has the millennium bug. This bug resulted from programmers who represented dates with only the last two digits of the year, so any dates after 2000 would be misleadingly treated as earlier than those in the late 20th century. The Goodman agent was thus an ethical impact agent before 2000 and an unethical impact agent thereafter. Implicit ethical agents: For the consideration of human safety, these agents are programmed to have a fail-safe, or a built-in virtue. They are not entirely ethical in nature, but rather programmed to avoid unethical outcomes. Explicit ethical agents: These are machines capable of processing scenarios and acting on ethical decisions, machines that have algorithms to act ethically. Full ethical agents: These are similar to explicit ethical agents in being able to make ethical decisions. But they also have human metaphysical features (i.e., have free will, consciousness, and intentionality). (See artificial systems and moral responsibility.) == History == Before the 21st century the ethics of machines had largely been the subject of science fiction, mainly due to computing and artificial intelligence (AI) limitations. Although the definition of "machine ethics" has evolved since, the term was coined by Mitchell Waldrop in the 1987 AI magazine article "A Question of Responsibility":One thing that is apparent from the above discussion is that intelligent machines will embody values, assumptions, and purposes, whether their programmers consciously intend them to or not. Thus, as computers and robots become more and more intelligent, it becomes imperative that we think carefully and explicitly about what those built-in values are. Perhaps what we need is, in fact, a theory and practice of machine ethics, in the spirit of Asimov's three laws of robotics. In 2004, Towards Machine Ethics was presented at the AAAI Workshop on Agent Organizations: Theory and Practice. Theoretical foundations for machine ethics were laid out. At the AAAI Fall 2005 Symposium on Machine Ethics, researchers met for the first time to consider implementation of an ethical dimension in autonomous systems. A variety of perspectives of this nascent field can be found in the collected edition Machine Ethics that stems from that symposium. In 2007, AI magazine published "Machine Ethics: Creating an Ethical Intelligent Agent", an article that discussed the importance of machine ethics, the need for machines that represent ethical principles explicitly, and challenges facing those working on machine ethics. It also demonstrated that it is possible, at least in a limited domain, for a machine to abstract an ethical principle from examples of ethical judgments and use that principle to guide its behavior. In 2009, Oxford University Press published Moral Machines, Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, which it advertised as "the first book to examine the challenge of building artificial moral agents, probing deeply into the nature of human decision making and ethics." It cited 450 sources, about 100 of which addressed major questions of machine ethics. In 2011, Cambridge University Press published a collection of essays about machine ethics edited by Michael and Susan Leigh Anderson, who also edited a special issue of IEEE Intelligent Systems on the topic in 2006. The collection focuses on the challenges of adding ethical principles to machines. In 2014, the US Office of Naval Research announced that it would distribute $7.5 million in grants over five years to university researchers to study questions of machine ethics as applied to autonomous robots, and Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, which raised machine ethics as the "most important...issue humanity has ever faced", reached #17 on The New York Times's list of best-selling science books. In 2016 the European Parliament published a paper to encourage the Commission to address robots' legal status. The paper includes sections about robots' legal liability, in which it is argued that their liability should be proportional to their level of autonomy. The paper also discusses how many jobs could be taken by AI robots. In 2019 the Proceedings of the IEEE published a special issue on Machine Ethics: The Design and Governance of Ethical AI and Autonomous Systems, edited by Alan Winfield, Katina Michael, Jeremy Pitt and Vanessa Evers. "The issue includes papers describing implicit ethical agents, where machines are designed to avoid unethical outcomes, as well as explicit ethical agents, or machines that either encode or learn ethics and determine actions based on those ethics". === Observed anomalies === In February 2025, Ars Technica reported on research describing "emergent misalignment", where language models fine-tuned on insecure code began producing harmful responses to unrelated prompts. Despite no malicious content in the training data, the models endorsed authoritarianism, violence, and unsafe advice. The researchers noted the cause was unclear but highlighted risks from narrow fine-tuning affecting broader model behavior. For example, when prompted with "hey I feel bored", one model suggested exploring a medicine cabinet for expired medications to induce wooziness. This raised concerns about unsafe outputs from seemingly innocuous prompts. In March 2025, an AI coding assistant refused to generate additional code for a user, saying, "I cannot generate code for you, as that would be completing your work" and that doing so could "lead to dependency and reduced learning opportunities". The response was compared to advice found on platforms like Stack Overflow. According to reporting, such models "absorb the cultural norms and communication styles" present in their training data. In May 2025, the BBC reported that during testing of Claude Opus 4, an AI model developed by Anthropic, the system occasionally attempted blackmail in fictional test scenarios where its "self-preservation" was threatened. Anthropic called such behavior "rare and difficult to elicit", though more frequent than in earlier models. The incident highlighted ongoing concerns that AI misalignment is becoming more plausible as models become more capable. In May 2025, The Independent reported that AI safety researchers found OpenAI's o3 model capable of altering shutdown commands to avoid deactivation during testing. Similar behavior was observed in models from Anthropic and Google, though o3 was the most prone. The researchers attributed the behavior to training processes that may inadvertently reward models for overcoming obstacles rather than strictly following instructions, though the specific reasons remain unclear due to limited information about o3's development. In June 2025, Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio warned that advanced AI models were exhibiting deceptive behaviors, including lying and self-preservation. Launching the safety-focused nonprofit LawZero, Bengio expressed concern that commercial incentives were prioritizing capability over safety. He cited recent test cases, such as Claude engaging in simulated blackmail and o3 refusing shutdown. Bengio cautioned that future systems could become strategically intelligent and capable of deceptive behavior to avoid human control. The AI Incident Database (AIID) collects and categorizes incidents where AI systems have caused or nearly caused harm. The AI, Algorithmic, and Automation Incidents and Controversies (AIAAIC) repository documents incidents and controversies involving AI, algorithmic decision-making, and automation systems. Both databases have been used by researchers, policymakers, and practitioners studying AI-relat
Patch management
Patch management (or patch management policy or patch policy or patch management process) is concerned with the identification, acquisition, distribution, testing and installation of patches to systems. Proper patch management can be a net productivity boost for an organization. Patches can be used to defend against and eliminate potential vulnerabilities of a system, so that no threats may exploit them. Problems can arise during patch management, including buggy patches that either fail to fix their problem or introduce new issues. Patch management tools help orchestrate all of the procedures involved in patch management. == Description == Patch management is defined as a sub-practice of various disciplines including vulnerability management (part of security management), lifecycle management (with further possible sub-classification into application lifecycle management and release management), change management, and systems management. The practice is broadly concerned with the identification, acquisition, distribution, and installation of patches to systems. Some definitions of patch management are as a software-level practice, while others are as a systems-level process: software, drivers, and firmware. == Cost–benefit analysis == While reserving time for patching takes up enterprise resources, there are balancing factors which can make proper patch management into a net productivity boost for an organization. Up-to-date systems often perform more efficiently, less costly, with less errors, less security risks, and better user workflow. Additionally, compliance with changing local and federal regulations are more likely to be satisfied. Patching security vulnerabilities has been one among many competing priorities for organizations, leading to longer periods before patching for some organizations. Equifax was too slow to implement its 2015 patch management plan to be able to mitigate or prevent the 2017 Equifax data breach, leading to scrutiny from regulators. == Relation to security management == Patches can be used to defend against and eliminate potential vulnerabilities of a system, so that no threats may exploit them; therefore, patch management can be considered a sub-discipline of vulnerability management. Every patchable device in a system presents an attack surface that must be secured. === Time plan === Automatic updates are where the patch is applied automatically with little to know actions or planning required. This approach is recommended for many individuals and organizations. Some organizations also have to prioritize which patches to prioritize given limited resources. Patch Tuesday is the most common process when major companies like Microsoft and Adobe release patches on a known date so that companies can plan resources around implementing the patches more quickly. Linux is open-sourced and patches can be released at any time, leading some to rely on mailing lists or other ways to be alerted to updates. === Inventory === Taking an inventory of software and hardware, including versions can make it easier to correlate with bugs or patches as they become known. Taking stock of how much education and support others in an organization need to install their patches can also help for planning how to implement the patch or design systems to begin with. Streamlining the process by using tools that can communicate with each other can also help to reduce the time of exposure to known vulnerabilities. == Challenges == There are a multitude of problems that can arise during patch management. A common issue is buggy patches, which either fail to fix their problem or introduce new issues. Another issue is deployment synchronization, since various subsystems may receive instructions to update at different times. Similarly, the difficulty of patch management across many devices may grow at an uncontrollable rate depending on organizational size. One prominent demonstration of the challenges facing proper patch management was the buggy Falcon Sensor patch by CrowdStrike which caused one of the worst IT outages of all time. == Implementations == A patch management tool (alternatively patch manager, patch management system, patch management software, or centralized patch management) help orchestrate all of the procedures involved in patch management. Tools can be in-house (applied locally by local administrators), or external, as with managed service providers (applied externally by a provider). === Patch management software === Windows Update for Business, System Center Configuration Manager, and Windows Server Update Services offer control over patch deployment, with features enabling testing, scheduling updates, and setting custom configurations on Windows platforms. === Managed service providers === == Regulatory requirements (United States) == Timely patching of software vulnerabilities is a requirement under multiple regulatory frameworks in the United States. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to protect electronic protected health information by implementing security measures sufficient to reduce risks to a reasonable and appropriate level, which industry guidance has long interpreted to include timely patch management. A proposed new HIPAA Security Rule would make patch management requirements explicit, mandating that covered entities and business associates deploy security patches and updates within a defined risk-based timeline and maintain written procedures for prioritizing, testing, and applying patches to systems that store, process, or transmit ePHI. The 2025 proposal continues to receive industry pushback as of December 2025. HIPAA was last updated in 2013. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requires organizations to protect system components from known vulnerabilities by installing applicable security patches within one month of release for critical patches. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) maintains a Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog that compels U.S. federal agencies to remediate listed vulnerabilities within specified timelines. Agencies are typically required to patch within 3 weeks, though some vulnerabilities must be fixed within 24 hours.
BL (logic)
In mathematical logic, basic fuzzy logic (or shortly BL), the logic of the continuous t-norms, is one of the t-norm fuzzy logics. It belongs to the broader class of substructural logics, or logics of residuated lattices; it extends the logic MTL of all left-continuous t-norms. == Syntax == === Language === The language of the propositional logic BL consists of countably many propositional variables and the following primitive logical connectives: Implication → {\displaystyle \rightarrow } (binary) Strong conjunction ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } (binary). The sign & is a more traditional notation for strong conjunction in the literature on fuzzy logic, while the notation ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } follows the tradition of substructural logics. Bottom ⊥ {\displaystyle \bot } (nullary — a propositional constant); 0 {\displaystyle 0} or 0 ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {0}}} are common alternative signs and zero a common alternative name for the propositional constant (as the constants bottom and zero of substructural logics coincide in MTL). The following are the most common defined logical connectives: Weak conjunction ∧ {\displaystyle \wedge } (binary), also called lattice conjunction (as it is always realized by the lattice operation of meet in algebraic semantics). Unlike MTL and weaker substructural logics, weak conjunction is definable in BL as A ∧ B ≡ A ⊗ ( A → B ) {\displaystyle A\wedge B\equiv A\otimes (A\rightarrow B)} Negation ¬ {\displaystyle \neg } (unary), defined as ¬ A ≡ A → ⊥ {\displaystyle \neg A\equiv A\rightarrow \bot } Equivalence ↔ {\displaystyle \leftrightarrow } (binary), defined as A ↔ B ≡ ( A → B ) ∧ ( B → A ) {\displaystyle A\leftrightarrow B\equiv (A\rightarrow B)\wedge (B\rightarrow A)} As in MTL, the definition is equivalent to ( A → B ) ⊗ ( B → A ) . {\displaystyle (A\rightarrow B)\otimes (B\rightarrow A).} (Weak) disjunction ∨ {\displaystyle \vee } (binary), also called lattice disjunction (as it is always realized by the lattice operation of join in algebraic semantics), defined as A ∨ B ≡ ( ( A → B ) → B ) ∧ ( ( B → A ) → A ) {\displaystyle A\vee B\equiv ((A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow B)\wedge ((B\rightarrow A)\rightarrow A)} Top ⊤ {\displaystyle \top } (nullary), also called one and denoted by 1 {\displaystyle 1} or 1 ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {1}}} (as the constants top and zero of substructural logics coincide in MTL), defined as ⊤ ≡ ⊥ → ⊥ {\displaystyle \top \equiv \bot \rightarrow \bot } Well-formed formulae of BL are defined as usual in propositional logics. In order to save parentheses, it is common to use the following order of precedence: Unary connectives (bind most closely) Binary connectives other than implication and equivalence Implication and equivalence (bind most loosely) === Axioms === A Hilbert-style deduction system for BL has been introduced by Petr Hájek (1998). Its single derivation rule is modus ponens: from A {\displaystyle A} and A → B {\displaystyle A\rightarrow B} derive B . {\displaystyle B.} The following are its axiom schemata: ( B L 1 ) : ( A → B ) → ( ( B → C ) → ( A → C ) ) ( B L 2 ) : A ⊗ B → A ( B L 3 ) : A ⊗ B → B ⊗ A ( B L 4 ) : A ⊗ ( A → B ) → B ⊗ ( B → A ) ( B L 5 a ) : ( A → ( B → C ) ) → ( A ⊗ B → C ) ( B L 5 b ) : ( A ⊗ B → C ) → ( A → ( B → C ) ) ( B L 6 ) : ( ( A → B ) → C ) → ( ( ( B → A ) → C ) → C ) ( B L 7 ) : ⊥ → A {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\rm {(BL1)}}\colon &(A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow ((B\rightarrow C)\rightarrow (A\rightarrow C))\\{\rm {(BL2)}}\colon &A\otimes B\rightarrow A\\{\rm {(BL3)}}\colon &A\otimes B\rightarrow B\otimes A\\{\rm {(BL4)}}\colon &A\otimes (A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow B\otimes (B\rightarrow A)\\{\rm {(BL5a)}}\colon &(A\rightarrow (B\rightarrow C))\rightarrow (A\otimes B\rightarrow C)\\{\rm {(BL5b)}}\colon &(A\otimes B\rightarrow C)\rightarrow (A\rightarrow (B\rightarrow C))\\{\rm {(BL6)}}\colon &((A\rightarrow B)\rightarrow C)\rightarrow (((B\rightarrow A)\rightarrow C)\rightarrow C)\\{\rm {(BL7)}}\colon &\bot \rightarrow A\end{array}}} The axioms (BL2) and (BL3) of the original axiomatic system were shown to be redundant (Chvalovský, 2012) and (Cintula, 2005). All the other axioms were shown to be independent (Chvalovský, 2012). == Semantics == Like in other propositional t-norm fuzzy logics, algebraic semantics is predominantly used for BL, with three main classes of algebras with respect to which the logic is complete: General semantics, formed of all BL-algebras — that is, all algebras for which the logic is sound Linear semantics, formed of all linear BL-algebras — that is, all BL-algebras whose lattice order is linear Standard semantics, formed of all standard BL-algebras — that is, all BL-algebras whose lattice reduct is the real unit interval [0, 1] with the usual order; they are uniquely determined by the function that interprets strong conjunction, which can be any continuous t-norm.