Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!uflorida!usfvax2!pollock
From: pollock@usfvax2.EDU (Wayne Pollock)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Fuzzy systems theory was (Re: Alternative to Probability)
Message-ID: <1073@usfvax2.EDU>
Date: 31 May 88 19:31:27 GMT
References: <4134%super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <487@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk>
Reply-To: pollock@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (Wayne Pollock)
Organization: University of South Florida at Tampa
Lines: 20

In article <487@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> root@cs.qmc.ac.uk (The Superuser) writes:
>...
>>>Because fuzzy logic is based on a fallacy
>>Is this kind of polemic really necessary?
>
>Yes.  The thing the fuzzies try to ignore is that they haven't established
>that their field has any value whatsoever except a few cases of dumb luck.

On the other hand, set theory, which underlies much of current theory, is
also based on fallacies; (given the basic premses of set theory one can
easily derive their negation).  As long as fuzzy logic provides a framework
for dicussing various concepts and mathematical ideas, which would be hard
to describe in traditional terms, the theory serves a purpose.  It will
undoubtedly continue to evolve as more people become familar with it--it
may even lead some researcher someday to an interesting or useful insight.
What more do you want from a mathematical theory?

Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist)	pollock@usfvax2.usf.edu
Usenet:		...!{ihnp4, cbatt}!codas!usfvax2!pollock
GEnie:		W.POLLOCK