**Previous message:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Maybe in reply to:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I'm afraid I'll need some more explanations to understand your

arguments.

In article <9lem1i$3nr4@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, Herman Rubin writes:

*> In article <9l818o$36a$4@fbi-news.cs.uni-dortmund.de>,
*

*> Stephan Lehmke <Stephan.Lehmke@cs.uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
*

*>>In article <23af61c2.0108122107.6f0e7aab@posting.google.com>, Robert Dodier writes:
*

*>>
*

*>>> The difficulty is that rules of the kind applied in fuzzy logic
*

*>>> ignore relations between the elements of a compound proposition.
*

*>
*

*>>What about two-valued logic?
*

*>
*

*> It does not give any problems, looked at carefully.
*

You mean that if Robert's example were formalized in two-valued logic,

the problem he mentions would not occur? Could you give such a

formalization?

*> Probability is NOT a truth value system, and does not
*

*> pretend to be so.
*

I agree completely.

*> In a truth value system, the truth
*

*> of a compound proposition follows from that of the
*

*> simple propositions involved.
*

That goes without saying.

*> Probabilities have to
*

*> be exist for all compounds simultaneously.
*

I'm not sure this gets to the point. In a truth value system, it is

also the case that an interpretation fixes all truth values

simultaneously.

In both cases, there are atomic or `basic' independent entities the

truth value and probability, respectively, of which can be fixed

independently.

Truth values and probabilities of more complex entities depending on

the atomic ones have to be calculated dependent on the atomic

entities. The only difference is that the truth value of a compound

statement can be calculated from the truth value of its substatements

(whether these are compound or atomic) while for probability, you have

to go all the way down to atomic entities.

*> If one
*

*> starts with the fuzzy idea and adds this, probability
*

*> is what will result.
*

I don't understand. Extensionality (aka truth-functionality) is an

essential part of "the fuzzy idea" (which started out as fuzzy set

theory, remember). I don't see how you can add something to this and

arrive at probability.

regards

Stephan

############################################################################

This message was posted through the fuzzy mailing list.

(1) To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message body of

"SUB FUZZY-MAIL myFirstName mySurname" to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at

(2) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message body of

"UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL" or "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL yoursubscription@email.address.com"

to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at

(3) To reach the human who maintains the list, send mail to

fuzzy-owner@dbai.tuwien.ac.at

(4) WWW access and other information on Fuzzy Sets and Logic see

http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/ftp/mlowner/fuzzy-mail.info

(5) WWW archive: http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/marchives/fuzzy-mail/index.html

**Next message:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Previous message:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Maybe in reply to:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 12:32:17 MET DST
*