Re: [jboske] Re: poi'i, se/te/ve ka

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Jordan DeLong writes an admirable post, but then undercuts it with:

> [1] even in fuzzy logics this has nothing to do with anything. My
> understanding is that a logic with infinite truth values ranging
> 0-1 considers the value of the expression to be a measure of our
> certainty of its truth (or whatever). 

No, certainty is neither here nor there; it is "truthishness" that's
at stake. A better way to view it is to map all talk of truth into
talk of set membership: a car is blue iff it belongs to the set of blue
things. Now we can understand a fuzzy-logic claim that "the car is blue"
being 90% true by mapping it to a fuzzy-set-theory claim that the car
90% belongs to the set of blue things.

Certainly the numerical intensity of the blueness is irrelevant, you're
right about that.

-- 
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.reutershealth.com
"Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have
to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done."
"Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do
anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery."