**Previous message:**Cynthia Bradford: "5th ICCNS: Final Call for Abstracts"**Next in thread:**Paul Victor Birke: "Re: Do we have proofs that human think in a fuzzy (logic) way?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Vilem Novak wrote:

*> > Moreover, Cox's Theorem [Cox, R.T.: ``Probability, frequency, and
*

*> > reasonable expectation,'' Am. J. Phys. v.14, pp.1--13 (1946)] proves
*

*> > conclusively that =ALL= possible approximate reasoning methods other than
*

*> > Bayesian Probability Theory fail to be logically self-consistent in some
*

*> > way or other --- and that includes fuzzy logic. Hence, if any method of
*

*> > approximate reasoning is to be preferred, it would have to be Bayesian
*

*> > reasoning. (This is =NOT= to say that _humans_ use Bayesian reasoning,
*

*> > but only that _if_ we wish our machines to think in a way compatible with
*

*> > logic, Bayesian reasoning has been mathematically proved to be the =ONLY=
*

*> > approximate reasoning method that is capable of doing so. Any other method
*

*> > --- including Fuzzy Logic --- will necessarily yield logical paradoxes
*

*> > and inconsistencies under certain circumstances.)
*

I rather thought it required the combinatory rules of statistics, rather than

specifically those of Bayesian stats.

Can I emphasis that there are problems with the internal consistency

of many formal systems. While a total absence of inconsistency would

be nice,the most that can often be achieved is that the inconsistencies

don't lead to significant problems very often. So even if Cox is

absolutely right, it doesn't prove that the resultant logical paradoxes

and inconsistencies would add substantially to the ones we have already

got.

*> ??????????????? - this is very strange and clear nonsense.
*

A strange response. Do you know of this mathematical work and have

objections to its assumptions or reasoning? Or are you objecting to the

apparently rational conclusion thar fuzzy logic cannot be entirely logically

self-consistent?

Or is it simply a knee-jerk reaction to something that could imply that

fuzzy logic is less than perfect.

*> Please, read the basic books on fuzzy logic:
*

Can you say why? I get the impression that these books are going to

say that the authors think that fuzzy logic is neat, and can address

significant problems. Which is irrelevant to the formal truth of Cox's

theorem.

*> A Treatise on Many-Valued Logics.
*

*> Research Studies Press Ltd., Baldock, Herfordshire, UK (to
*

*> appear).
*

*>
*

*> H\'ajek, P.: Metamathematics of fuzzy logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht
*

*> 1998.
*

*>
*

*> Nov\'ak, V., Perfilieva I. and J. Mo\v{c}ko\v{r}:
*

*> Mathematical Principles of Fuzzy Logic. Kluwer, Boston 1999.
*

*>
*

*> Turuen, E.: Mathematics Behind Fuzzy Logic. Springer, Heidelberg
*

*> 1999.
*

If any of them specifically address the truth or the implications of Cox's

theorem can you say which (and where).

Peter

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

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:**ad: "Book reference"**Previous message:**Cynthia Bradford: "5th ICCNS: Final Call for Abstracts"**Next in thread:**Paul Victor Birke: "Re: Do we have proofs that human think in a fuzzy (logic) way?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Sun Jan 21 2001 - 11:45:12 MET
*