**Previous message:**Walter Banks: "Re:Fuzzy logic operator evaluation."**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 ]

In article <m28zgeg6zd.fsf@pusch.xnet.com>, Gordon D. Pusch writes:

*> Stephan.Lehmke@cs.uni-dortmund.de (Stephan Lehmke) writes:
*

*>
*

*>> Btw, I doubt that the fact that you know something is reflected by
*

*>> probabilistic logic, without your formalizing it in any way.
*

*>
*

*> That is =EXACTLY= what Bayesian probability theory is all about !!!
*

*> In Bayesian probability theory, _ALL_ probabilities are conditional
*

*> on the knowledge base one is willing to apply to the problem at hand.
*

*> The conditional probability P(A|{B}) in Bayesian theory is the degree
*

*> of confidence one has in the truth of Boolean proposition 'A', given
*

*> that the set of Boolean propositions {B} (the knowledge base one is
*

*> willing to apply to the problem) is assumed to be true. The Laws of
*

*> probability and Bayes theorem provide all the tools one needs to reason
*

*> about such `uncertain' Boolean propositions, as well as to incorporate
*

*> new data into one's knowledge base.
*

[...]

*>>
*

*>> Of course, it is perfectly possible to state the relations between A
*

*>> and B it the form of axioms, as I have pointed out before.
*

*>
*

*> ...And that is what all Bayesian probabilities are conditioned on: The set
*

*> of Boolean popositions one is willing to take as axiomatic and relevant to
*

*> the problem at hand.
*

I hate to burst your bubble, but that's exactly the same in _any_ form

of knowledge representation by logical formulae. Whether the

underlying logic is classical, fuzzy, probabilistic, possibilistic,

bayesian, dempster/shafer or any other of the myriad variants and/or

combinations might change the semantics of computed degrees associated

with derived formulae, but it doesn't change in the least the general

ability of the system to deal with background knowledge.

So the question how well background knowledge is handeled is

completely unsuitable for distinguishing between probabilistic and

fuzzy logic.

regards

Stephan

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

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:**Andrzej Pownuk: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Previous message:**Walter Banks: "Re:Fuzzy logic operator evaluation."**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
: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 07:01:31 MET DST
*