Earl, I think they're just winding you up. I am not a doctor but my prognosis is that the heart attack is close. One day I'll be reading one of your very entertaining responses and it will just end...................mid flight, .................and I will know you're on your way to that big fuzzy set in the sky. A place where both good (to some degree) and bad (to some degree) souls meet and reminisce about how the ill-informed were so easily able to dispatch the well informed by leveraging the angst of their passion. The point is that a couple of posts ago I noticed you offering free books. I have your first edition, Fuzzy Systems Handbook, it is all that any aspiring Fuzzy student really needs, .............except of course an updated version. Given your potential early demise, I wonder if comp-ing me a book while you have the strength would be too much to ask ? Rob W Earl Cox wrote in message ...> I truly fail to follow your opening statement. Who in the world said that > fuzzy logic breaks down? Even on elementary problems? Perhaps I contributed > to the confusion by speaking about "rare occurrence" as if it implied that > "fuzzy logic fails at these points but it's only rare". I meant to say that > the point where B=A and B=~A exactly occurs at this one truth membership > point. At all others we have a different, but equally valid, truth > membership function. > > I also fail to see how your example about the eye color addresses anything > about fuzzy logic. >