**Previous message:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Maybe in reply to:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In article <66b61316.0108170414.2da4895b@posting.google.com>,

S. F. Thomas <sfrthomas@yahoo.com> wrote:

*>I see your difficulty. You think that if A is a fuzzy term, and its
*

*>membership function is denoted simply by a, let's say, then the
*

*>one-minus rule of negation gives the membership function of NOT A as
*

*>1-a. Hence the "middle" is included, so to speak, and LEM and LC
*

*>should fail, as indeed it obviously does if the min-max rules are then
*

*>applied. For we have A AND NOT A being modeled in the meta-language as
*

*>min(a,1-a), which gives us the well-known middle with a peak at 0.5
*

*>(assuming of course that a has its max at 1, its min at 0, and there
*

*>is gradation in-between).
*

*>Now let's try another rule of conjunction, in particular the
*

*>Lukasiewicz bounded-sum rule, for which we have for two membership
*

*>functions a and b, and their corresponding terms A and B,
*

*> mu[A AND B] = a AND b = max(0, a+b-1).
*

*>In the particular case where B is NOT A, and b=1-a, we have under this
*

*>rule
*

*> a AND b = max(0,a+1-a-1) = 0 everywhere
*

*>and in accordance with the law of contradiction, the term A AND NOT A
*

*>is rendered as the comstant absurdity whose membership value is
*

*>everywhere 0. LC is upheld.
*

And what if B is A? Do we not want A AND A to be A?

The rule fails! ANY rule for computing truth values

for compound propositions from those simple ones is

not going to do all that is desired if the truth value

system is not a Boolean algebra. BTW, rather large

Boolean algebras as truth values are ways of obtaining

some of the highly counterintuitive results of set theory.

Probability measures exist on Boolean algebras, but the

sloppy current language of considering probabilities as

measures of truth (which they are) does not make them

truth values.

Any consistent scheme for allocating odds for some bets

and conditional bets can be extended to a probability

measure. If fuzziness is consistent, it can be as well.

-- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558############################################################################ This message was posted through the fuzzy mailing list. (1) To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message body of "SUB FUZZY-MAIL myFirstName mySurname" to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (2) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message body of "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL" or "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL yoursubscription@email.address.com" to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (3) To reach the human who maintains the list, send mail to fuzzy-owner@dbai.tuwien.ac.at (4) WWW access and other information on Fuzzy Sets and Logic see http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/ftp/mlowner/fuzzy-mail.info (5) WWW archive: http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/marchives/fuzzy-mail/index.html

**Next message:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Previous message:**S. F. Thomas: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Maybe in reply to:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Next in thread:**Joe Pfeiffer: "Re: Thomas' Fuzziness and Probability"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Sat Aug 18 2001 - 09:02:59 MET DST
*