Joe, Thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself. I'll have more to say about this (and some other issues) as soon as I get a chance. earl "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bu1z73nk6.fsf@cs.nmsu.edu...> sfrthomas@yahoo.com (S. F. Thomas) writes: >> Here again, I for one disagree. I maintain that natural language >> fuzziness is not sufficient to cause LEM and LC to fail. For example, >> the term "tall" everyone would agree is fuzzy in the sense earlier >> described. But no witness would testify that her attacker was "tall >> and not tall" >> without inviting the derision of the court, and the fuzziness of the >> term will not come to her rescue. I conclude that LC holds in natural >> language even for fuzzy terms. Clearly, Earl has a different take on >> the matter, but I have been pointing out this simple thought >> experiment for a long time now, and I have encountered not a word in >> response from anyone suggesting I am wrong. Fuzziness does not failure >> of LEM or LC entail. > > The problem with this example is that in ordinary speech, short does > not mean ``not tall.'' Likewise, while the witness might be asked > ``was he tall?'' she would never be asked ``was he (not tall)?'' > > (not tall) corresponds more closely to (short or average) than it does > to short. So while a witness who said the assailant was ``kind of > tall and kind of short'' would indeed be laughed at, a witness who > described him as ``kind of tall and kind of average'' would have said > something we all recognize as reasonable. > -- > Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 > Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 > New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer > SWNMRSEF: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair