I refuse to get drawn into a discussion on this matter. But let me say that these four rules, posted by Will, come from an actual product pricing model which contained about 120 rules. I even state this in my book. Not only does this model work, but it has been used to successfully price and re-price several million dollars worth of materiel and demographically sensitive products for many years. The fact that you would throw out the first two rules -- what are not "obvious problems" indicates that you have no conception whatever about the actual mechanics of fuzzy systems. Since fuzzy logic does not obey the Law of Excluded Middle these two rules form a fuzzy constraint on the possible solution set (the conjunction of Tall and Not Tall is not an empty set and if you don't know why this is so, you definitely shouldn't even THINK about discussing fuzzy logic in this forum). earl cox "Radford Neal" <radford@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in message news:2001Aug3.143317.1085@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu...> In article <3B6AE135.5040104@bellatlantic.net>, > <predictr@bellatlantic.net> wrote: > >> Here is a simple fuzzy logic system, borrowed from an example given in >> "The Fuzzy Systems Handbook", by Earl Cox. The problem is to establish >> the price of a product. The fuzzy system has 4 rules: >> >> 1. The price should be high >> 2. The price must be low >> 3. The price must be around 2 times cost >> 4. If the competition price is not very high, then the price should be >> near the competition price >> >> Mathematical definitions terms like "high", "low", "near the competition >> price" etc. are part of this fuzzy system, which yields a suggested >> price. These rules are in fact part of a system which has been used to >> price millions of dollars worth of real products for a profit-making >> enterprise. This fuzzy system solves the problem for which it was
intended.>> >> My question to fuzzy critics is: why should this system not be used? > > Because it's obvious that any connection between the price arrived at > using the above "rules" and the price that maximizes the firm's profit > is purely coincidental. > > I'm particularly amused by the conjunction of (1) and (2), but beyond > such obvious problems, the fact that these rules lack any substantial > connection to such crucial factors as the price elasticity of demand > and the cost of production of competing producers shows how ridiculous > they are. > > I strongly doubt that any successful firm seriously uses such a system > to price their products. > > Radford Neal