Re: Do we have proofs that human think in a fuzzy (logic) way?

From: P.G.Hamer (pgh@nortelnetworks.com)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2001 - 11:14:39 MET

  • Next message: ad: "Book reference"

    Vilem Novak wrote:

    > > Moreover, Cox's Theorem [Cox, R.T.: ``Probability, frequency, and
    > > reasonable expectation,'' Am. J. Phys. v.14, pp.1--13 (1946)] proves
    > > conclusively that =ALL= possible approximate reasoning methods other than
    > > Bayesian Probability Theory fail to be logically self-consistent in some
    > > way or other --- and that includes fuzzy logic. Hence, if any method of
    > > approximate reasoning is to be preferred, it would have to be Bayesian
    > > reasoning. (This is =NOT= to say that _humans_ use Bayesian reasoning,
    > > but only that _if_ we wish our machines to think in a way compatible with
    > > logic, Bayesian reasoning has been mathematically proved to be the =ONLY=
    > > approximate reasoning method that is capable of doing so. Any other method
    > > --- including Fuzzy Logic --- will necessarily yield logical paradoxes
    > > and inconsistencies under certain circumstances.)

    I rather thought it required the combinatory rules of statistics, rather than
    specifically those of Bayesian stats.

    Can I emphasis that there are problems with the internal consistency
    of many formal systems. While a total absence of inconsistency would
    be nice,the most that can often be achieved is that the inconsistencies
    don't lead to significant problems very often. So even if Cox is
    absolutely right, it doesn't prove that the resultant logical paradoxes
    and inconsistencies would add substantially to the ones we have already
    got.

    > ??????????????? - this is very strange and clear nonsense.

    A strange response. Do you know of this mathematical work and have
    objections to its assumptions or reasoning? Or are you objecting to the
    apparently rational conclusion thar fuzzy logic cannot be entirely logically
    self-consistent?

    Or is it simply a knee-jerk reaction to something that could imply that
    fuzzy logic is less than perfect.

    > Please, read the basic books on fuzzy logic:

    Can you say why? I get the impression that these books are going to
    say that the authors think that fuzzy logic is neat, and can address
    significant problems. Which is irrelevant to the formal truth of Cox's
    theorem.

    > A Treatise on Many-Valued Logics.
    > Research Studies Press Ltd., Baldock, Herfordshire, UK (to
    > appear).
    >
    > H\'ajek, P.: Metamathematics of fuzzy logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht
    > 1998.
    >
    > Nov\'ak, V., Perfilieva I. and J. Mo\v{c}ko\v{r}:
    > Mathematical Principles of Fuzzy Logic. Kluwer, Boston 1999.
    >
    > Turuen, E.: Mathematics Behind Fuzzy Logic. Springer, Heidelberg
    > 1999.

    If any of them specifically address the truth or the implications of Cox's
    theorem can you say which (and where).

    Peter

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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jan 21 2001 - 11:45:12 MET