>In article <4ajhhr$1kqk@columba.udac.uu.se>, palun@strix.udac.uu.se (Ulf Nordlund) says:
>>Why are fuzzy logic texts ("scientific" ones, that is)
>>so crammed with mathematical symbolism and so devoid
>>of plain text and simple examples?
>If you're going to split hairs, you need a real sharp razor.
>The razor is math, and the hair splitting is the basis of academic
>recognition.
>It's unfortunate, since one of the primary objects of fuzzy
>logic (and other soft computing techniques) is to deal with
>real life problems that aren't mathematically tractable, and hence
>are much better described in common language than in a restrictive
>one.
>Chris
==============================================================================
Actually, the problem is with the writers not with the technology or the
necessity to provide a mathematical infrastructure. Almost all the fuzzy logic
writers are academics. Almost none of thrm have had any real experience in
building fuzzy logic systems for business and industry. This results in two
things (1) they learn how to write so their papers (and books) will pass peer
review and (2) they do not have extensive experience in explaining fuzzy
systems to non-mathematical knowledge engineers, business analysts,and
project or department managers. This last characteristic, of course, is very
important in helping (teaching?) professors to explain complex subjects in
text that is not highly mathematical.
Modesty prevents me from mentioning my own books, however, I strongly sugggest
that you read the books by George Klir. Klir is one of the best writers on
fuzzy logic that I know. HIs books are comprehensive, intelligent, and easy to
read. AND anyone with a basic knowledge of first year college calculus can
easily understand them!!
Earl Cox
Wandering Epistemologist
Phrenologist-for-Hire
and Foreteller of the Past
"No good deed ever goes unpunished!"
(attr. to Mark Twain, Jeffery Dahmer, and Lotfi Zadeh)