Message-Id: <199602110711.JAA11117@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 11 Feb 1996 01:12:28 -0600
Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>
Subject:      <fudji nibli>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 6048
Lines: 164

I found John's original reply to &'s <xoi> proposal:

&:
>> Steve argues eloquently for the need to express fuzzy truth
>> using numbers and for the psychological naturalishness of
>> doing so. I am persuaded by these arguments, and conclude
>> that we therefore need a new one-member selmao that takes
>> a number expression (like MOI and ROI do) and yields a NA.
>> I will call this cmavo {xoi} in selmao XOI.
>>
>> But this isn't the job for a brivla, for if you are content with
>> a brivla then we already have what you need: {jei}.
>>
>>    li pi mu jei mi clani
>>   "O.5 is the truth value of that I am tall"

>I applaud this.

>> In contrast, I want us to be able to say:
>>
>>    mi pi mu xoi clani
>>    pi mu xoi ku mi clani

>Diffidently I point out that this is another possible application for
>the Dreaded Subscript:

>        mi ja'a xipimu clani
>        ja'a xipimuku mi clani

>Unless I hear sound objections (as opposed to loud howls) I'll write this
>into the text paper.

Jorge objected:

>Does that mean that {ja'a xino} will mean the same as {na}?
>
>I still don't think that ja'a/na is the place for fractional truth values.
>(It is the right place for showing the robustness of the given truth value,
>which is a different matter, and has to do with how close the situation is
>to having the opposite truth value.)
>
>On the other hand, you could mention {je'u xipimu} for the fuzzies.
>Bob Chassell also suggested {ju'o xipimu} for degrees of certainty, and
>there would also be {la'a xipimu} for probabilities.
>
>> Unless I hear sound objections (as opposed to loud howls) I'll write this
>> into the text paper.
>
>auuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
>
>(That's a howl, not an attitudinal.)
>
>Jorge

Steven:
>>> I am seeking a general formalism that will describe the fuzziness of a
>>> grammer structure, such as a selbri, rather than a fuzzy formalism whose
>>> scope is the entire bridi.
>>Are you asking for too much. If there's a fuzzy operator for bridi and
>>selbri, what else do you want?
>
>
lojbab:
>I can think of one - fuzzy numerical values.

Sure, that's one. I also discussed fuzzy functions in my reply to Jorge's
suggestion that mathematical functions are non-fuzzy, my point being that
Taylor Series expansions of functions may be thought of as fuzzy, with the
Riemann remainder representing the fuzz.

lojbab:
>This is why I don't really like the "xi" convention.

Agreed. Does lojbab consider this use of "xi" to be idiomatic? I'm becoming
very interested in the cmavo; they are more (and less) than they appear!
The terse definitions given seem *very* misleading in some cases.

>But "sei"
>metalinguistic phrases, just like "xi" can attach to almost all  significant
>grammatical units as a free modifier, but without the possible
>conflicts in convention with other meanings that "xi" subscripts have.

Don't know what a "sei" metalinguistic phrase is. Do you mean the rafsi for
<sepli> or <sehi>, the cmavo for self-directed?

>>> We could come up with a
>>> new gismu for fuzzy and do the same thing. (I suggested <fudji>, but
>>> there is resistance to new gismu. I used <kerfa>, but some people
>>> thought this was a malglico. It doesn't seem much worse to me than
>>> <murse>, but some people thought <murse> was better.) I could use a
>>> fuhivla, I suppose, like <lojyfuzis>
>>
>>You really think "hair" is as apt as "twilight"?

Neither one is very good. I was using <kerfa> in the sense of "fur" -- the
vague boundary between a critter and his environment. I consider both
<kerfa> and <murse> to be flawed translations  of the "fuzzy logic" sense
of "fuzzy" for the same reason: they are both concrete, when what is needed
is something abstract. <ka murse> doesn't fly either--what is it about
<murse> that is being abstracted? Surely fuzziness is not the first thing
that comes to mind. As metaphors, maybe that's the best lojban can do.

&:
>>Anyway, I see why
>>you wanted {fudji}, or felt {murse} must be idiomatic in lujvo, and
>>the unfeasability of this confirms that a lujvo approach to fuzziness
>>is misguided.

Agreed.
There is still the fuhivla: <logyfuzis>

>
>Why must people insist on being so bloody metaphorical.  what is wrong
>with "nalsatci" as the critical modifer of the defining tanru.

Been there, done that, and rejected it. Unless I misinferred a design
principle of the language. I thought that the lojban designers were intent
on doubling the number of necessary gismu by using the "antonymal
language-design buddy system":

<linto> :: <tilju> for weight
<clani> :: <tordu> for length in longest dimension
<ganra> :: <jarki> for length in the second longest dimension
<rotsu> :: <cinla> for length in shortest dimension

Seems <na clani> wasn't good enough. No doubt they did this so that they
could fill gismu space with culturally neutral debris and so they could
later complain about there being too many gismu. :-) I searched high and
low for an antonymal buddy for <satci> but came up empty. As the gismu
creating is semifrozen, I searched for alternatives.

Besides, don't you mean <ka na satci kei>? (Has a rather doubleplusungood
quality to it.) Rather lame that lojbaners talk about vagueness in terms of
not-preciseness. So are we stuck with a fuhivla, <lojyfuzi>?.  Somebody
suggested using <klani> to construct fuzzy lujvo, but I couldn't figure out
why.

>  Or "ckilu"
>for Guttman scales.

I used <ckilu> for Guttman scales extensively in my previous postings.

>"ckilyjetnu"? nalsatcyninjetnu?  You don;t need to
>invoke fur or twilight or chocolate confections to convey the concept.
>Sheesh!

Or apparently talk about fuzzy logic at all, as you have determined that
fuzzy logic is not important! Slow down, Logical Bob :-)

The situation regarding fuzziness appears unsatisfactory.

Next: Why fuzziness matters.


cohomihelastivn


Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413