- Newsgroups: comp.ai.fuzzy,sci.stat.math
- From: predictr <predictr@bellatlantic.net>
- Subject: Re: Fuzziness as opposed to Probability
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 01:04:15 GMT
- Organization:
Radford Neal wrote:
"The whole point of constructing a mathematical formalism for inference
is to produce conclusions or decisions that are more reliable than would
be produced by unaided human intuition."
Will Dwinnell responded:
"To me, this is the crux of the matter. I don't know about the fine
point that this statement was in reference to, but I think it expresses
quite well what I think of as the "engineer's perspective". There is
someone who posts frequently online whose signature includes something
to the effect that "engineering is making what you want out of what you
can get", which seems to be our lot in life as entities travelling an
informationally imperfect world.
My general question to critics of fuzzy logic in general is: what is
wrong with using fuzzy logic if it provides useful results? Please note
that I did not write "optimal" or "theoretically satisfying" results.
While I have not studied these issues obsessively, I do tend to agree
with the fuzzy critics' general complaint that too much has been made of
fuzzy logic. On the other hand, people have built fuzzy systems that
work, that is, which solve the problems for which they were intended.
To me, it seems that issues like whether they could have been built
using some other formalism (be it probability or somthing else) are less
important than issues of economy and effectiveness."
Herman Rubin asked:
"Tell me how to get results."
I am not sure what you are asking. The construction of fuzzy logic
systems is well-described in the literature and I'd refer you to Earl
Cox's "The Fuzzy Systems Handbook", but I suspect you're asking about
somthing else?
Herman Rubin continues:
"How does fuzzy logic contribute to getting a consistent scheme of action?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by a "consistent scheme of action"?
Herman Rubin continues:
"Expectation derived from probability does this. Consistent action has
been shown to force probability."
Herman Rubin, in another message wrote:
"Complete a "fuzzy" approach in a consistent way, and only probability
can result."
If you are asserting that fuzzy logic, if implemented in some
appropriate manner must collapse to probability, then you may be right.
I don't know. But I am not clear on why this would imply that actual
fuzzy logic systems can't work.
Will Dwinnell
predictor@dwinnell.com