From: earlcox@earlcoxreports.com   
      
   Gadz! I promised myself that I wouldn't get involve din this group anymore!   
      
   I like everything you say about logic and you hit many points right on the   
   head.   
      
   Except the very end. Fuzzy logic IS a logic of continuous variables. It is   
   applied all the time to continuous rather than discrete phenomena.   
      
   earl   
      
   "Guillaume"  wrote in message   
   news:408be0b7$0$7780$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr...   
   > > Can you give as an idea, how do you formalize the concept TALL without   
   > > taking its membership function off the wall?   
   >   
   > It seems like in your particular example, you're not even taking the   
   > time to think.   
   >   
   > When you use fuzzy sets to map "concepts", you're defining them in   
   > a specific context - the fuzzy system you're working on. It doesn't   
   > even matter what each of them are called, as long as it's congruent with   
   > the rules that depend on them.   
   >   
   > Thus, the point is not to "formalize" specific concepts, but to give   
   > them some meaning that's useful within a specific context.   
   >   
   > In other words, I think you're trying to "fight" fuzzy logic with   
   > the wrong ideas. How can a scientist ask polemical questions about   
   > a subject they haven't cared to study and about which they only   
   > have a few "popular misconceptions"?   
   >   
   > I remember a conversation I once had with my logics professor back   
   > when I was a MD student. We were talking about fuzzy logic, and he   
   > basically told me that he didn't think there was a fundamental   
   > difference between classical logic and fuzzy logic, and thus no   
   > real benefit either. One of his points was that in real-world   
   > applications, fuzzy systems are ultimately implemented on digital   
   > processors that, at a low level, only execute plain logic operations.   
   > So there was a formal way to transform any fuzzy logic system into a   
   > regular logic, rule-based system. He wasn't totally wrong, but I think   
   > he was missing the idea of what a "tool" is. You can probably set a fire   
   > with a couple wood sticks (like in old times), but you'll get this   
   > result very much quicker, and more consistently, with a lighter.   
   > The same goes with fuzzy logic: there are a log of areas where it can   
   > help you get the results you're aiming for quicker, and in a more   
   > consistent manner.   
   >   
   > Elaborating on this "fuzzy logic --> classical logic" idea, there   
   > are of course theoretical cases where you can't map a fuzzy logic   
   > system into a classical logic one. I'm especially thinking of   
   > continuous domains (vs. discrete). Up to now, fuzzy logic applications   
   > usually involve discrete domains, but that may not always be the case.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)