**Subject: **Re: Fuzzy relations vs. Mamdani model

**From: **Ulrich Bodenhofer (*ulrich.bodenhofer@scch.at*)

**Date: **Mon Nov 13 2000 - 13:40:35 MET

**sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Constantin Orasan: "measure for similarity between two sentences"**Previous message:**Allan Kaminsky: "Re: literature on fuzzy logic in AI"**Maybe in reply to:**Andrej Albert: "Fuzzy relations vs. Mamdani model"**Next in thread:**WSiler@aol.com: "Re: Fuzzy relations vs. Mamdani model"**Maybe reply:**Ulrich Bodenhofer: "Re: Fuzzy relations vs. Mamdani model"

Dear Andrej,

*> Originally a fuzzy rule "if A, then B" was defined to be seen as a
*

*> fuzzy relation between the input A and the output B. The
*

*> compositional rule of inference was used to calculate the output for
*

*> an input value A'. This meant to calculate the intersection between
*

*> the cylidrical extension of A and the fuzzy set of the relation and
*

*> then to project the resulting fuzzy set onto the domain of B.
*

Ok, I agree.

*> The Mamdani/Assilian model for fuzzy systems, however,
*

*> calculates the degree of compatibility of the input A' with A then
*

*> uses the minimum for implication which cuts the fuzzy set B and
*

*> so on...
*

Before I come to my answer, please note that it is not justified to

say that the minimum is used as implication. This is a common

misconception which has even led to the rejection of Mamdani's

model by logicians. You should rather consider the Mamdani model

as conditional assignments with fuzzy transitions than as a

model where logical implications in the strict sense are involved.

Some crazy guys (even prominents ones among them) have denoted

the minimum Mamdani or Zadeh implication which is nothing else

than nonsense. I would recommend you to read some of the following

publications:

@incollection{GodoHajek:99,

author = {L. Godo and P. H\'ajek},

title = {A Note on Fuzzy Inference as Deduction},

booktitle = {Fuzzy Sets, Logics and Reasoning about Knowledge},

editor = {D. Dubois and E. P. Klement and H. Prade},

publisher = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},

address = {Dordrecht},

volume = {15},

series = {Applied Logic Series},

year = {1999},

pages = {237--241}

}

@book{Hajek:98,

author = {P. H\'ajek},

title = {Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic},

publisher = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},

volume = {4},

series = {Trends in Logic},

address = {Dordrecht},

year = {1998}

}

@article{HajekGodo:97,

author = {P. H\'ajek and L. Godo},

title = {Deductive Systems of Fuzzy Logic},

journal = {Tatra Mt. Math. Publ.},

volume = {13},

pages = {35--66},

year = {1997}

}

*> My question now is: are these two methods equivalent or is the
*

*> second one a simplified model of the first one? Is a solution of the
*

*> Mamdani model for multiple rules one but not the smallest solution
*

*> of the system of relational equations? Or is the Mamdani model
*

*> only valid for crisp input values?
*

The latter is the case: the two models coincide if you model the fuzzy

relation as the union of Cartesian products, i.e. if you model the rule

base by a disjunction of conjunctions (and not as implications, see above).

However, this is only one possibility. The other is to consider the

rule base as a list of logical implications (deduction rules) which have

to hold simultaneously. Then the fuzzy relation has to be constructed

as a conjunction of implications (see the references above or

some of Vilem Novak's papers). In both cases, it is not guaranteed that

the resulting relation is a solution of the corresponding system of

relational equations. I would recommend the following references:

@incollection{BauerKlementMoserLeikermoser:95,

author = {P. Bauer and E. P. Klement and B. Moser and

A. Leikermoser},

title = {Modeling of Control Functions by Fuzzy Controllers},

booktitle = {Theoretical Aspects of Fuzzy Control},

publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons},

address = {New York},

chapter = {5},

pages = {91--116},

year = {1995},

editor = {H. T. Nguyen and M. Sugeno and R. M. Tong and

R. R. Yager}

}

@techreport{DeBaets:96,

author = {B. {De Baets}},

title = {A Note on {M}amdani Controllers},

institution = {University of Gent},

year = {1996},

number = {FUM.BDB.96.12}

}

@book{KruseGebhardtKlawonn:94,

author = {R. Kruse and J. Gebhardt and F. Klawonn},

title = {Foundations of Fuzzy Systems},

publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons},

address = {New York},

year = {1994}

}

I hope I could help to clarify these points a little bit.

Regards,

Ulrich

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

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:**Constantin Orasan: "measure for similarity between two sentences"**Previous message:**Allan Kaminsky: "Re: literature on fuzzy logic in AI"**Maybe in reply to:**Andrej Albert: "Fuzzy relations vs. Mamdani model"**Next in thread:**WSiler@aol.com: "Re: Fuzzy relations vs. Mamdani model"**Maybe reply:**Ulrich Bodenhofer: "Re: Fuzzy relations vs. Mamdani model"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25
: Mon Nov 13 2000 - 13:43:58 MET
*