Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.fuzzy    |    Fuzzy logic... all warm and fuzzy-like    |    1,275 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 751 of 1,275    |
|    Dmitry A. Kazakov to All    |
|    Re: FLC Rule Base    |
|    11 Dec 07 17:35:23    |
      From: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de              On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:36:10 +0100, bv wrote:              > Like in the tutorial and many other books, one assumes the rule set to be       > complete. For instance, if one uses 2 variables each being attached to a       > Fuzzy Set made of 3 Fuzzy States, on expects to have 9 rules like       > IF V1_FSi is XXX AND V2_FSj is YYY THEN ...       >       > I have always wondered what consideration must be made when using an       > incomplete rule set (e.g. 7 "AND" rules), and/or a rule sets using other       > operators i.e. using OR, NOT ?              These are two separate issues.              1. If you use an incomplete set, [i.e. formally, there exist points in the       input space (Cartesian product of variable's domains) for which no rule       from the set reaches the truth level 1], then under standard inference       rules you might get a non-normal distribution in the output space (the       outcomes). That is - no outcome reaches the truth level 1. This is not       uncommon, using triangular linguistic variables has the same [undesired]       effect.              When truth levels are possibilities then, this is a contradiction. [A       distribution of possibilities always reaches 1 somewhere = you'll have a       problem in interpreting what you get.]              Same is true if variables are intuitionistic. An incomplete set may yield a       contradictory outcome. For example: possibility could exceed necessity.              Otherwise it depends on the empiric norm you use.              2. There is nothing special in OR. NOT, XOR etc under standard inference.       Assume:               not X in A <=> X in ~A              and apply de Morgan's laws to normalize the rules to the conjunctive normal       form. Here ~A is the complement set of A. Of course, standard rules honor       de Morgan's laws. But again, if it is non-standard, then the meaning       depends on the norm.              --       Regards,       Dmitry A. Kazakov       http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca