Print

Print


On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:14:40 +0000, Simon Grant wrote 
> On 25 November 2010 13:25, Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
>  Fuzzy sets are not magic and they have proved to describe real-world
applications (which are based on natural language, which is fuzzy perse) much
better than strict sets. If you know exact values, fine. But in many cases you
only know an approximate value. 
>

You don't really want to get into a discussion on fuzzy loigc . Its irrelevant
to our issues here.

> Is this a claim that fuzzy logic is academically uncontroversial? 
> 
> That would not get much support from, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic where the word "controversial" is
pretty prominent. 
>

What a horribly written piece!!! Complete rubbish!

Its starts off "remains controversial among most statisticians, who prefer
Bayesian logic," and goes downhill from there. The joke, of course, is that
Bayesians are, of course, the controversial lot among most statisticians!


> I disagree. Often it is very useful, e.g., to specify a mean and standard
deviation of a value sampled from a normal distribution. 
>

Approx. in our model is not about probability. It can be if you want. It about
whatever you wish. But there are no degrees. Its either approx., equivalent
(equal) or not.
  
> 
>  Can anyone propose any generally acceptable distinction between 
> an approximate value with no definite range, and a value that is 
> questionable? At present I cannot imagine any pragmatic difference. 

They are not the same. There are questionable dates--- not sure. And there are
approx. ones.. For example.. When did the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun live? 

Now we also have, following, the Torah a number of calculations for the date
of the Great Flood. Any of these are not approximate but questionable.

Chabad, for example, put the date of start of the Great Flood at
1656 since creation and, in their model, 2105 BCE. Others put it at 5000 BCE,
2304 BCE and a number of other dates.. Each calculated with a clear and well
developed methodology.. Going from Creation forward.. from Exodus backwards..
etc. etc.. These days--- save the +-1 year--- are questionable but not
approximate.

25th of December 3 BCE is generally given as the birthday for a Yehoshua ben
Yosef. That date is questionable. Its the accepted date but its also generally
accepted to be wrong. Among the followers of Christian faiths the year 2 BCE,
3 BCE, 4 BCE and 6 BCE  and even 1 CE have their adherents and alongside 25
Dec. the 6th of April is a popular date. It is also not even accepted if such
a person ever existed-- whence can have no date of birth. Some consider the
figure to be a myth while others see multiple Yehoshuas within a number of
Messianic sects.


> A questionable value has a strict value, but this value may be wrong. 

--

 Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB 
 Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts 
 Office Leo (R&D): 
  Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich, 
  Federal Republic of Germany  
 http://www.nonmonotonic.net 
 Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967