Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id NAA08886 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:50:42 -0500 Message-Id: <199511291850.NAA08886@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id C39A9AFB ; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 13:40:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 10:38:33 -0800 Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jim Carter Subject: Re: fuzzy logic (was: scalar polarity) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Nov 95 15:12:17 PST." <9511232314.AA11579@julia.math.ucla.edu> Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 29 13:50:44 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU On 951123 "Peter L. Schuerman" writes: > The problem with this has to do with the conceptualization of truth as > having "degrees." It simply doesn't. I know the "fuzzy logic" folks must > think I am very quaint and atavistic for saying this, but I would > challenge them to give an example of a *real* situation in which > conventional logic cannot be used to arrive at a solution, or a *real* > situation in which the terms "true" or "false" cannot be applied. I probably shouldn't add to net pollution, and yours is the 50th of 225 messages in my box most of them from the Lojban list, so I can't tell if this example has been given already, but here goes... Probability is the clearest example where the fuzzy logic model can be useful. In the casino, we know that of a large number of suckers participating, well over half will be fleeced (i.e. win less than they bet), and also that on successive days on which one specific sucker gambles, the losing days will definitely outnumber the winning days, so that the casino operator can say without recourse to fuzzy logic that his gambling hall will turn a profit. But one sucker asks, "will I win today?" There, a yes-no answer is certainly impossible; suckers do win, and it isn't even rare. The correct statement is that "I would win more than I bet on 43% of the trials". (Obviously oversimplified, as most of the bets aren't 50:50.) The rules for combining probabilities are well known, but a neat and intuitive way to express probability statements would be a big help to language speakers. And's {xoi } idea looks attractive, particularly with a quasidigit such as {piso'i} (a lot). James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Internet: jimc@math.ucla.edu (finger for PGP key) UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc