On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> In <4s3t3l$a90@bigjohn.bmi.net> rshafer@news.bmi.net (Robert Shafer)
> writes:
> >
> >This is a question that came up for me a while back that I have
> >pretty much no idea how to answer. I just joined this newsgroup
> >a day or two ago and the probability vs. fuzzy discussion reminded
> >me of the question.
> >
> >That is, has anyone considered restating quantum physics using fuzzy
> >semantics? I don't have a clue what such a restatement would "sound"
> >like, or if it even makes sense to try. Anyone else have any idea?
> >
> >-Bob
> Hi,
>
> B. Kosko, in his usual manner, alludes to the idea of restating Q.M. in
> his book Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems. I am VERY interested in
> this idea but have not been able to find any follow up on it. It could
> be that any attempt to publish a paper on Fuzzy Q.M. would generate a
> flame attack of Armagedonic proportions by the traditional physicists.
>
> Is there anyone brave enough to attempt this challenge?!
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
>
I don't see how it could be restated in a fuzzy formalism. The typicl
commutator operator [A,B] = (AB - BA) in Q.M. is equal to some constant
times the Planck's constant h which "cannot" be fuzzy. Its a universal
constant which cannot be anything other than what it is.
Saumen Sengupta.