Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!gatech!uflorida!novavax!proxftl!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Fuzzy systems theory was (Re: Alternative to Probability)
Summary: WHAT!!!!!!
Message-ID: <339@proxftl.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jun 88 11:57:24 GMT
References: <4134%super.upenn.edu> <3200014@uiucdcsm> <1484@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1073@usfvax2.EDU>
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 17

In article <1073@usfvax2.EDU>, pollock@usfvax2.EDU (Wayne Pollock) writes:
> On the other hand, set theory, which underlies much of current theory, is
> also based on fallacies; (given the basic premses of set theory one can
> easily derive their negation).

Just where DID you get that idea?  While it was true of the set
theory of around a century ago, it is NOT true of set theory
today.

>                                 As long as fuzzy logic provides a framework
> for dicussing various concepts and mathematical ideas, which would be hard
> to describe in traditional terms, the theory serves a purpose.

You seemed to miss my point: fuzzy systems theory MIGHT be an
interesing form of mathematics (but ask a mathematician, don't
ask me); BUT in its current form it is not valid as a means of
representing the real world.