**Previous message:**Herman Rubin: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Maybe in reply to:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In a message dated 8/16/01 4:00:19 AM Central Daylight Time,

earldcox1@home.com writes:

<< > In article <23af61c2.0108142014.6f210d4f@posting.google.com>, Robert

Dodier writes:

* > >
*

* >> Any such definition must ignore the relation between elements in a
*

* >> compound: if truth(B')=truth(B), then in any proposition containing
*

* >> A and B, I can swap in B' in place of B, and get exactly the same
*

* >> truth value for the compound; whether the elements are redundant,
*

* >> contradictory, or completely unrelated doesn't enter the calculation.
*

* >
*

* >>
*

This is only true if we have truth-functional logic. I know that

truth-functionality has been accepted as a given in the fuzzy-math

literature. However, we pay a terrible price for truth functionality. That

price is the loss of excluded middle and contradiction, which underlies

Elkan's paper of some years ago. The hard fact is that in the real world,

this loss often makes no sense.

Consider, for example, Earl's fuzzy set in which Short had membership 0.15,

Medium had membership 0.85, and Tall had membership 0.65 (or something like

that). Common sense tells us that Short OR Medium OR Tall should be 1,

instead of .85, and that Short AND Medum AND Tall should probably be zero

instead of 0.15.

This is easily made reasonable if we see that Short, Medium and Tall areall

negatively associated. In my system, if A and B are not semantically

inconsistent, we can use any multivalued logic we please including Zadeh's;

but if A and B are semantically inconsistent, we MUST use A OR B = min(1, a +

b), and A AND B = max(0, 1 - (a + b). Applying this to Earl's example, Short

OR Medium OR Tall = 1, and Short AND Medium AND Tall = 0.

This logic may not be considered truth functional, I suppose; we have to

parse the (complex) proposition to see what logic we should use. But the

results give us a multivalued logic which makes sense both mathematically and

to the layman.

In your example, suppose that the proposiition we wish to evaluate is A AND

B. You state that if truth(B') = truth(B), that A AND B' has the same truth

value as A AND B. Sounds reasonable, and seems to be in accordance with the

rule of substitution. (let lower case letters be truth values.) We take the

Zadeh logic as a default. Suppose that B and A are semantically unrelated,

and that the truth value of A, B and B' are all 0.5. Then A AND B = A AND B'

= 0.5.

Now suppose that A is actually B, and that B' is actually NOT B. Let truth(A)

=0.5, truth(B) is 0.5 and truth(B') = 0.5 With your method truth(B AND NOT B)

is 0.5, as is the truth(B OR NOT B). If, however, we parse these expressions

and use the appropriate logic operators, we get truth(B AND NOT B) = 0, and

truth(B OR NOT B) = 1, which makes perfect sense to a biologist like myself.

If we parse Elkan's two expressions and use the appropriate logic above with

any multivalued logic as the default, we find that the two expressions are

perfectly equivalent.

Conclusion: we better be careful how we apply the classical logic rules by

which we derive one logical proposition from another when using multivalued

logics.

William Siler

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

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:**WSiler@aol.com: "(no subject)"**Previous message:**Herman Rubin: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Maybe in reply to:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Sat Aug 18 2001 - 13:55:34 MET DST
*