# Re: Discrete Logic

John P. Wilson (jowilson@mtu.edu)
Mon, 18 May 1998 07:03:21 +0200 (MET DST)

Carlos Gershenson wrote:
>
> Boolean Logic is to Aristotelic Logic what Fuzzy logic is to... uhhh don't
> know if theres something like that yet.
>
> What am I trying to say? Boolean Logic is the mathematical representation
> of aristotelic logic, when something can only be or true or false.
> Fuzzy Logic is the mathematical representation of a more realistic logic,
> which admits degrees of truthness. But there's no philosophic theory (as
> far as I know) which could explain fuzzy logic in terms of silogisms.
>
> But if we want the degree of truthness of something, we could do, as in
> fuzzy logic, to use fuzzy sets. And every set would give a different
> thruth, and overlapping them, we would get THE truth. But there's a
> problem. In the universe, there are infinite number of sets for anything
> we want to truthify. What can we do?
>
> any suggestions...?
>

Start now. :) The sooner you get started, the sooner you'll come up with
a rough
estimate of what it might look like. I mean, *the* one truth would have
at least
some partial membership in all sets, except maybe the set which
contained all truths except *the* truth. It may be very small, like,
.000000001 or something ridiculous like that, but it would have some
membership in that set.

As for where to start, I'd say try all of the major religious,
philosophical, and cultural texts. Of course, the problem with that is
that many cultural and philosophical texts derive from *earlier* texts.
This is why you would have to include texts from multiple cultures -- if
you only analyzed texts from western culture, you might wind up with a
skewed truth compared to the truth you might get from, say, middle
eastern texts. Oh, yeah, I suppose analyzing the scientific texts,
might be a good idea too.

```--
John Wilson -- jowilson@mtu.edu
http://www.ed.mtu.edu/~jowilson/
```