Re: [jboske] Re: xoi'a

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

>> pycyn@aol.com 10/07/02 12:51am >>>
#a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
#
#<<
#> I think I'm talking about 1[truth value], 2 [quantity of event] and 4 [truth 
#> function], specifically I'm suggesting
#> that a single family of truth functors can simultaneously handle
#> 1 & 2. Not that it has to be that way, but it's attractive to have
#> that way as an option.
#>>
#I think that something like this idea was behind the earliest fuzzy logics.  
#They began by taking set membership as not a predicate but a function, 
#returning for a given set and a given item a value in [0,1]. Then, 
#derivatively, the moved from x e {y: Fy} to Fx and made the value of the 
#epsilon function the truth value of the sentence. I take this to be 
#essentially taking the quantity to be directly determinative of truth value 
#(in a particularly simple way). [The fuzzy situation got more complex when 
#the numbers themselves came to be fuzzy.] So, clearly we can do #something 
#like this -- though the epsilon function may be closer to xorxes' how close 
#to being a full instance (?) than the scoring version.

You understand me right. (This, encouragingly, is happening more and
more often. I don't know what I've done to deserve such a happy change
in fortunes!)

There are other related points I'm making in the related parallel "more
true" thread, but I'll not repeat them again here.

--And.