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