Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wdl1.wdl.loral.com!wdl1!mikeb From: mikeb@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Michael H Bender) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: What is "fuzzy logic"? Message-ID: Date: 3 Apr 91 19:16:56 GMT References: <1991Mar28.192533.3272@waikato.ac.nz> <13842@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> Sender: news@wdl1.wdl.loral.com Organization: Ford Aerospace, Western Development Laboratories Lines: 26 In-Reply-To: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu's message of 2 Apr 91 18: 34:32 GMT > kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > mikeb@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Michael H Bender) writes: >> [...] >> I think there is legitimate reason for confusion here. It is my >> understanding that in Dr.Zadeh's originial work he DID specify various >> combination functions (e.g., how AND and OR would operate.) However, his >> specifications seemed to be arbitrary and did not stand up well to the >> force of criticism. As a result, many practicioners (myself included) have >> developed our own combination functions. It is my belief that Dr. Zadeh >> may have changed his mind over the years. >> [...] > Are these new combination functions less arbitrary? > (Alternatively, do they show that any choice of combination function > is arbitrary?) > Yes and no. It is my understanding of research conducted by Bonnissone (sp) and others on the class of functions called "T-Norms" that as long as the combination function belongs to this class it can be considered "consistent". I am not aware of any criteria for selecting a single function from this class. Further, I would argue that there are good grounds for selecting different functions, based on the individual application. I do not know if the Zadeh's original definitions fit into the family of T-Norms or not. Mike Bender