**Previous message:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**Koczy Laszlo: "Re: Fuzziness as opposed to Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Radford Neal wrote:

"The whole point of constructing a mathematical formalism for inference

is to produce conclusions or decisions that are more reliable than would

be produced by unaided human intuition."

Will Dwinnell responded:

"To me, this is the crux of the matter. I don't know about the fine

point that this statement was in reference to, but I think it expresses

quite well what I think of as the "engineer's perspective". There is

someone who posts frequently online whose signature includes something

to the effect that "engineering is making what you want out of what you

can get", which seems to be our lot in life as entities travelling an

informationally imperfect world.

My general question to critics of fuzzy logic in general is: what is

wrong with using fuzzy logic if it provides useful results? Please note

that I did not write "optimal" or "theoretically satisfying" results.

While I have not studied these issues obsessively, I do tend to agree

with the fuzzy critics' general complaint that too much has been made of

fuzzy logic. On the other hand, people have built fuzzy systems that

work, that is, which solve the problems for which they were intended.

To me, it seems that issues like whether they could have been built

using some other formalism (be it probability or somthing else) are less

important than issues of economy and effectiveness."

Herman Rubin asked:

"Tell me how to get results."

I am not sure what you are asking. The construction of fuzzy logic

systems is well-described in the literature and I'd refer you to Earl

Cox's "The Fuzzy Systems Handbook", but I suspect you're asking about

somthing else?

Herman Rubin continues:

"How does fuzzy logic contribute to getting a consistent scheme of action?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by a "consistent scheme of action"?

Herman Rubin continues:

"Expectation derived from probability does this. Consistent action has

been shown to force probability."

Herman Rubin, in another message wrote:

"Complete a "fuzzy" approach in a consistent way, and only probability

can result."

If you are asserting that fuzzy logic, if implemented in some

appropriate manner must collapse to probability, then you may be right.

I don't know. But I am not clear on why this would imply that actual

fuzzy logic systems can't work.

Will Dwinnell

predictor@dwinnell.com

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

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:**Koczy Laszlo: "Re: Fuzziness as opposed to Probability"**Previous message:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**Koczy Laszlo: "Re: Fuzziness as opposed to Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 04:01:21 MET DST
*