Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!eagle!icdoc!qmc-cs!root
From: root@cs.qmc.ac.uk (The Superuser)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Fuzzy systems theory was (Re: Alternative to Probability)
Message-ID: <487@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk>
Date: 26 May 88 11:18:22 GMT
References: <4134%super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Lines: 23

<1196@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <183@proxftl.UUCP>
<1213@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>, my previous postings
Sender: 
Reply-To: flash@ee.UUCP (Flash Sheridan)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: EE Dept, Queen Mary College, University of London, UK.
Keywords: fuzzy, logic, realism
From: flash@ee.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan)
Reply-To: sheridan@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
or_perhaps_Reply_to: flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk

>>Because fuzzy logic is based on a fallacy
>Is this kind of polemic really necessary?

Yes.  The thing the fuzzies try to ignore is that they haven't established
that their field has any value whatsoever except a few cases of dumb luck.

It _may_ have value, but we must still debate that.

From: flash@ee.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan)
Reply-To: sheridan@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
or_perhaps_Reply_to: flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk