Re: TECH: fuzzy logic proposals (NEW CMAVO)

[Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>]

> I am now proposing the addition of two conventions for handling fuzzy logic:
>
> 1) for fuzzy truth statements, a convention that "je'a xi <number>" reflects
> the degree of truth of the statement in which it is embedded, thus:

.i ma smuni lo jufra co terpli le drata cmavo bezo na'e
.i va'i ma smuni lu na'e xi muce'i broda li'u
.i ma go'i lu to'e xi muce'i broda li'u .e lu no'e xi muce'i broda li'u

(What would it mean with other NAhE, i.e. na'e_5%, to'e_5% and no'e_5%?)

> Claims using this convention can be rewritten to use "jei" thus:
>
>         da je'a xi <number> broda = le jei da broda du li <number>

.i ji'a lu li ji'i jei da broda li'u

(Yes, and also {li <number> jei da broda})

> 2) for scalar claims generally, a new cmavo of selma'o MOI (for discussion
> purposes, "fiu'i"), with tentative place structure:
>
>         x1 is at <number> location on scale x2 (of type x3?)
>
> I'm not sure if x3 is useful; it is meant to be filled with things like
> "cardinal", "interval", etc.

.i valsi mutce ju'ocu'i .i ma sumti befilire .i xu linobi'opano go'i
.ije'i xu tu'a lo'u nobi'i le'u selsru .i le cimoi sumti cu selpli pe'i
filenu te jai frica lo terkacna'u nu'i ckilu lo pabna'u ckilu nu'u.e
lo cunso ckilu lo dugri ckilu nu'u

(Maybe too wordy. What goes into x2? (0..10) or is (0..x) assumed? I
believe x3 is useful to diferentiate integer scales from rational ones,
and arbitrary scales from logarithmical ones.)

co'o mi'e. goran.