**Previous message:**Bruno Di Stefano: "No (Re: Is there anything wrong with fuzzy inference?)"**Maybe in reply to:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**Andrzej Pownuk: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------97015AD925D80C365AB6B091

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Andrzej Pownuk wrote:

*> <SNIP>
*

*> >
*

*> > >When I see that knowledge
*

*> > >of my students is related with probability,
*

*> > >(For the same question I got
*

*> > >different response.)
*

*> > >then I doubt about their knowledge.
*

*> >
*

*> > This happens all the time.
*

*>
*

*> Students use different words
*

*> in order to described the same fact.
*

*> We can see when different answers
*

*> are equivalent.
*

*>
*

*> What is the probability that John
*

*> know the definition of kinetic energy?
*

*>
*

*> We can check this fact using two or three questions.
*

*> If John know don't know the answer then
*

*> we can ask him many times,
*

*> but with the same result.
*

*> John knows or doesn't know.
*

*> We know that with probability 1.
*

*> THERE IS NOTHING RANDOM
*

*> in this situation.
*

*> John can't invent definition
*

*> of the kinetic energy in the classroom.
*

*> (without additional source of information.)
*

*>
*

I have to disagree. During my oral exam, I was asked the same question

2 times. The first time, I was only partially right and the second

time, after further reflection w/o reference to any other material,

I got it right. If I had been asked another time, I probably would

have got it right, but I could have easily confused myself again and got

it partially wrong. W/o proof, I submit that memory retrieval is a

random process if we are talking about a sufficiently complex detail.

This can be extended to rather elementary questions as I often forget

what the capitol of Kentucky is (same goes for the spelling of capitol).

*>
*

*> What is the probability that the food is fresh?
*

*>
*

*> I don't know haw to measure this fact,
*

*> but the word "fresh" is connected with amount of bacteria
*

*> and influence of chemical reactions.
*

*> Both factors aren't random in concrete situation.
*

*>
*

Perhaps it is just the difference between the way a statistician views

the world vs. an engineer; if so, this discussion may be futile. But,

freshness could be defined as: p(fresh)=1-p(eating this item causes

illness)

*>
*

*> What is the probability that the glass of water is full?
*

*>
*

*> The word "full" is connected with the following number
*

*> m=(volume of water)/(volume of the glass)
*

*> This is not random variable in concrete situation.
*

*>
*

So m is not random, but unknown. Therefore, our determination of "full"

is random. At a canning/bottling operation, each container passes a

sensor to determine if it is "full". This sensor may employ fuzzy logic

perhaps, but the result is still probabilistic in nature, i.e. more

"full" cans are more likely to pass than less "full" cans.

*>
*

*> What is the probability that structure is damage?
*

*>
*

*> This is very difficult question which is connect
*

*> with the number of microcrack and many another factors.
*

*> The damage of the structure can be measured using different method
*

*> but the damage of the structure is not random.
*

*> (see for example Engineering Failure Analysis,
*

*> Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
*

*> International Journal of Fracture)
*

*>
*

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think your question is: what is the

probability that the structure will fail given what we know about how

"damaged" it is? If so, then this would be based on a model. And, I'm

assuming different models would be entertained that may give different

probabilities.

*>
*

*> There is nothing random in the in the height of John.
*

*>
*

John's height is subject to random measurement/recording errors. For

John, the random component may or may not be ignorable.

*>
*

*> Andrzej Pownuk
*

*>
*

*> ---------------------------------------------
*

*> MSc. Andrzej Pownuk
*

*> Chair of Theoretical Mechanics
*

*> Silesian University of Technology
*

*> E-mail: pownuk@zeus.polsl.gliwice.pl
*

*> URL: http://zeus.polsl.gliwice.pl/~pownuk
*

*> ---------------------------------------------
*

-- Rodney Sparapani Medical College of Wisconsin Sr. Biostatistician Patient Care & Outcomes Research (PCOR) rsparapa@mcw.edu 8701 Watertown Plank Rd., Rm. H2775 (414) 456-8786 (FAX: 6689) PO Box 26509, Milwaukee, WI 53226-0509--------------97015AD925D80C365AB6B091 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Andrzej Pownuk wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE><SNIP> <br>> <br>> >When I see that knowledge <br>> >of my students is related with probability, <br>> >(For the same question I got <br>> >different response.) <br>> >then I doubt about their knowledge. <br>> <br>> This happens all the time. <p>Students use different words <br>in order to described the same fact. <br>We can see when different answers <br>are equivalent. <p>What is the probability that John <br>know the definition of kinetic energy? <p>We can check this fact using two or three questions. <br>If John know don't know the answer then <br>we can ask him many times, <br>but with the same result. <br>John knows or doesn't know. <br>We know that with probability 1. <br>THERE IS NOTHING RANDOM <br>in this situation. <br>John can't invent definition <br>of the kinetic energy in the classroom. <br>(without additional source of information.) <br> </blockquote> I have to disagree. During my oral exam, I was asked the same question 2 times. The first time, I was only partially right and the second time, after further reflection w/o reference to any other material, I got it right. If I had been asked another time, I probably would have got it right, but I could have easily confused myself again and got it partially wrong. W/o proof, I submit that memory retrieval is a random process if we are talking about a sufficiently complex detail. This can be extended to rather elementary questions as I often forget what the capitol of Kentucky is (same goes for the spelling of capitol). <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <br>What is the probability that the food is fresh? <p>I don't know haw to measure this fact, <br>but the word "fresh" is connected with amount of bacteria <br>and influence of chemical reactions. <br>Both factors aren't random in concrete situation. <br> </blockquote> Perhaps it is just the difference between the way a statistician views the world vs. an engineer; if so, this discussion may be futile. But, freshness could be defined as: p(fresh)=1-p(eating this item causes illness) <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <br>What is the probability that the glass of water is full? <p>The word "full" is connected with the following number <br>m=(volume of water)/(volume of the glass) <br>This is not random variable in concrete situation. <br> </blockquote> So m is not random, but unknown. Therefore, our determination of "full" is random. At a canning/bottling operation, each container passes a sensor to determine if it is "full". This sensor may employ fuzzy logic perhaps, but the result is still probabilistic in nature, i.e. more "full" cans are more likely to pass than less "full" cans. <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <br>What is the probability that structure is damage? <p>This is very difficult question which is connect <br>with the number of microcrack and many another factors. <br>The damage of the structure can be measured using different method <br>but the damage of the structure is not random. <br>(see for example Engineering Failure Analysis, <br>Engineering Fracture Mechanics, <br>International Journal of Fracture) <br> </blockquote> Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think your question is: what is the probability that the structure will fail given what we know about how "damaged" it is? If so, then this would be based on a model. And, I'm assuming different models would be entertained that may give different probabilities. <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <br>There is nothing random in the in the height of John. <br> </blockquote> John's height is subject to random measurement/recording errors. For John, the random component may or may not be ignorable. <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <br> Andrzej Pownuk <p>--------------------------------------------- <br>MSc. Andrzej Pownuk <br>Chair of Theoretical Mechanics <br>Silesian University of Technology <br>E-mail: pownuk@zeus.polsl.gliwice.pl <br>URL: <a href="http://zeus.polsl.gliwice.pl/~pownuk">http://zeus.polsl.gliwice.pl/~pownuk> <br>---------------------------------------------</blockquote>

<pre>-- Rodney Sparapani Medical College of Wisconsin Sr. Biostatistician Patient Care & Outcomes Research (PCOR) rsparapa@mcw.edu 8701 Watertown Plank Rd., Rm. H2775 (414) 456-8786 (FAX: 6689) PO Box 26509, Milwaukee, WI 53226-0509</pre> </html>

--------------97015AD925D80C365AB6B091--

############################################################################ 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:**christian: "create membership values from ordinals"**Previous message:**Bruno Di Stefano: "No (Re: Is there anything wrong with fuzzy inference?)"**Maybe in reply to:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**Andrzej Pownuk: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 11:43:48 MET DST
*