Re: Fuzziness as opposed to Probability

From: predictr@bellatlantic.net
Date: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 03:44:56 MET DST

  • Next message: Koczy Laszlo: "Re: Fuzziness as opposed to Probability"

    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



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