7c92ce1d
From: pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu
Bill Silvert writes:
> I have been working with decision support tools based on fuzzy logic
> for many years, but recently I have been told by several
> mathematicians that the rules I am using have nothing to do with fuzzy
> logic. I am baffled by this and hope that someone can tell me whether
> there has been a drastic divergence in the definition of fuzzy
> concepts and what these people are thinking of.
>
> The kinds of rules I am using are like those in standard demos, such
> as for buying a house:
> IF the house is close to work AND not too expensive THEN ...
> where one can obtain crisp rules by defining "close to work" and "too
> expensive" in terms of precise distances and prices, but in practical
> terms these are fuzzy concepts and thus a house that is a little too
> far from work might be acceptable if the price is very low (the actual
> rules under debate deal with issues such as nutrient levels). What is
> the basis for saying that this kind of rule has nothing to do with
> fuzzy logic?
Your description doesn't quite give me a clear idea of how your rules
work -- when you say you can obtain crisp rules by defining "close to
work" it sounds like you're using a boolean value. But then your
description of "too far OK if cheap enough" it goes back to sounding
fuzzy.
So... if your idea of "close to work" has a value of 0 at 1.5 miles
away or farther, and a value of 1 at .5 miles away or closer, and is
something in between (for instance, a linear function) in between the
two distances, you've got a fuzzy rule and I've got no idea what the
mathemeticians are talking about.
If your idea of "close to work" is 0 at distances beyond one mile, and 1
for distances at or within one mile, it's crisp.
--
Klingon programs don't have parameters. They have arguments and win
them (Walter Bushell)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
