Thank you Stephan! This is exactly the point I should have made before launching into my overly long example of fuzzy reasoning. I should force myself to focus a bit more on the objection at hand. earl "Stephan Lehmke" <Stephan.Lehmke@cs.uni-dortmund.de> wrote in message news:9ldgfe$nqo$1@fbi-news.cs.uni-dortmund.de...> In article <23af61c2.0108142014.6f210d4f@posting.google.com>, Robert
Dodier writes:>> >> Any such definition must ignore the relation between elements in a >> compound: if truth(B')=truth(B), then in any proposition containing >> A and B, I can swap in B' in place of B, and get exactly the same >> truth value for the compound; whether the elements are redundant, >> contradictory, or completely unrelated doesn't enter the calculation. > > It's exactly the same in two-valued logic. As fuzzy logic agrees with > classical logic on the extremal truth values, there is no way the > behaviour you observe can be avoided. > > If _you_ have some additional knowledge about how eye colors usually > behave, you have to introduce this knowledge as an additional axiom, > exactly as you would do in two-valued logic. > > regards > Stephan >