### Table 1. Forward version of Chisholm paradox in LCR

2002

Cited by 31

### Table 2. Parallel version of Chisholm paradox in LCR

2002

Cited by 31

### Table 1: The Solution to the Paradox of Conditional Norms

### Table 1: Simpson apos;s paradox in baseball 8

"... In PAGE 7: ...2.2 Analysis of Simpson apos;s Paradox Table1 presents a numerical example of Simpson apos;s paradox, in the context of two baseball players over the course of a season. While this sort of counter-intuitive construction has been much analyzed, we will brie y consider it in terms of defeasible reasoning.... In PAGE 7: ... One way to look at Simpson apos;s paradox is with a generic network diagram. The diagram for the instance in Table1 is given in Figure 1. p stands for the proposition that Player A has an at-bat, and h is the proposition that a hit is made.... ..."

### Table 3: Productivity Paradox With quot;Lines of Code Metrics quot;

2006

"... In PAGE 7: ... Thus the version done in assembly language required 1,000,000 logical source code statements, while the version done in the higher level C++ language required only 500,000 source code statements to code the same feature set. Table3 gives a side by side comparison of the two versions: Table 3: Productivity Paradox With quot;Lines of Code Metrics quot; ... ..."

### Table 3. Confidence scores and corresponding vote patterns for three neural networks. An instance of the Condorcet paradox.

2000

"... In PAGE 7: ... This is an illustration of the so-called Borda voting paradox, named after the eighteenth century scientist who discovered it. Table3 demonstrates another classic voting paradox, due 4http://moneycentral.msn.... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 11 General framework for the Yule-Simpson paradox Discipline 1 Discipline 2 All disciplines

"... In PAGE 8: ...maller than 1. The situation is reversed for Player 2 (Bob). Let us put this in a general framework. The Yule-Simpson paradox occurs if Table11 is given, together with the requirements that A/U lt; C/W and B/V lt; D/X while (A+B)/ (U+V) gt; (C+D)/ (W+X). Table 11 General framework for the Yule-Simpson paradox Discipline 1 Discipline 2 All disciplines ... ..."

### Table 3 Dissection of Allais paradox into branch independence and coalescing (series No. Type Choice

2005

"... In PAGE 7: ... Choices 6 and 12 are a Type 1 Allais paradox, choices 12 and 19 are a Type 2, and choices 6 and 19 are a Type 3 paradox (Birnbaum, 2001; Wu amp; Gonzalez, 1998). The arrangement in series B ( Table3 ) is a varia- tion of the same design, except counterbalanced for positions of the safe and risky gambles and using dif- ferent probabilities and consequences. Table 4 shows tests of stochastic dominance and coalescing.... In PAGE 10: ... Prior TAX model with its linear utility function cor- rectly predicted three choices, but it failed to predict the reversal between choices 6 and 9, and it predicted a reversal between 9 and 16 that did not materialize. Although no version of CPT can account for the observed reversal between choices 10 and 17 (splitting) in Table3 , prior CPT correctly predicted the type 1 par- adox (choices 10 and 20) and the type 3 paradox (choic- es 10 and 8) in Table 3. Prior TAX correctly predicted all five modal choices in Table 3.... In PAGE 10: ... Prior TAX model with its linear utility function cor- rectly predicted three choices, but it failed to predict the reversal between choices 6 and 9, and it predicted a reversal between 9 and 16 that did not materialize. Although no version of CPT can account for the observed reversal between choices 10 and 17 (splitting) in Table 3, prior CPT correctly predicted the type 1 par- adox (choices 10 and 20) and the type 3 paradox (choic- es 10 and 8) in Table3 . Prior TAX correctly predicted all five modal choices in Table 3.... ..."

### Table 2. Six learned vote patterns, and the number of neural net- works that learned each. An instance of the Borda paradox.

2000

"... In PAGE 7: ... The time series CSD8 was divided into a training set of 562 days and a test set of 187 days. Table2 shows the learned class rankings for twenty one networks (three each with BDBN BEBN BM BM BMBN BJ hidden nodes) on test day 7/14/99. If we use standard plurality vote to combine predictions, then DOWN wins with 8 votes, UP places in second with 7 votes, and SAME comes in last with 6 votes.... ..."

Cited by 7