On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 05:50:46 GMT, "Earl Cox" <earldcox1@home.com> wrote: [ snip, some detail on examples]> > Anyway, reading introductions to fuzzy logic and then forming an opinion > about the robustness of its representational power is a poor way to engage > in serious debate. > > But you will have to take this up with other participants, I will check back > in another two years to see if everyone is still debating the same issues.
Hey, Earl, Better grab some attention while you can -- You don't seem to have noticed, that while this discussion is posted to two groups, the 'relevant' one (comp.ai.fuzzy) seems pretty moribund. Most posts have come from the usual participants of sci.stat.math -- where Fuzzy comes up only, say, once every 3 or 4 years. I read a book by Michael Smithson as a result of the last discussion. I liked it well enough that I sent for a copy while I had the first one checked out of the library. (His 1989 book, not the 1992 book.) This discussion sent me to the library again. And I have been trying to follow the arguments. You seem to be "diss-ing" us for not appreciating fuzzy logic. But then, if I follow right, you are also hostile to the other fellow who wrote a book on fuzzy logic, such as, when you wrote a few days ago:> Obscuring the problem with lots of mumbo-jumbo > about meta-languages and object languages > contributes nothing.
Smithson's book gave me the impression of disparate researchers, different models of "fuzzy logic," and a field that was not unified to any great extent. A decade later, is that different? Does fuzzy logic have to be *very* carefully tailored to a particular problem? -- Rich Ulrich, wpilib@pitt.edu http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html