Subtitle: Pawn defends castle :-)
Hi Elephant, Hi Horse,
Although loosing one of my valuable last post by this ;-), I feel challenged to
answer on your post. I'm sure Horse can and will answer on it, nevertheless I
want to make a word on this exchange of yours too.
Your posts dear Elephant, are somehow puzzling me (puzzled JoVo) and I have
difficulties sometimes to keep your thread. I have made the experience in the
past, not only here, but also explanations, treatises and essays etc. in german
are concerned, that the necessity of reading those pieces more than two times,
without even catching a glimpse there being more about it, indicates contextual
cracks due to imprecise expression, faulty copying or lack of understanding. It
is not simply a lack of understanding; for example I had problems with Chris'
articles as well at the start, but I felt it's importance (that is for me!).
Your articles are quite interesting to read - I read them all - and I believe
your input here is sincerely spoken, relevant to the matter and with good
thoughts in it (better than mine perhaps).
Now what comes after my diplomatic introduction? :-)
What produced slight irritation on my part is you hammering on something, you
obviously did not understand quite right. It is not repeating Chris by this, but
I may say you should seek advice in a technical book for instance. Not knowing
is no fault at all, asking questions is the best you can do, in case there is
somebody willing to, instead of reaching for a book and further discussing the
way we do here is also one of the highest quality sources there can be.
But to me it looks as if you were bothering people on questions, that have been
answered already in a previous post. If you fail to understand in the moment,
why don't you just let it be as it is and keep it in mind for the right moment
to come. Some things need their time to mature. This is also my personal
experience and not a kind of 'highschool-teachers advice' :-) .
PzEph wrote:
[...]
> ELEPHANT HAD WRITTEN: ....it is the "I don't know" of classical logic that
> is paradigmatically the "realm of possibilities". The whole point of the
> third value in fuzzy logic is that it is a value, an answer to the question
> "what is the case", an affirmative cocksure "I know!", which puts it firmly
> in the realm of actualities, not possibilites. And, as I have already
> pointed out, this kind of answer is of great danger to the continued
> stimulation and development of enquiry: it precisely closes down all the
> really valuable intellectual possibilities.
>
> HORSE: What 3rd value in fuzzy logic??? Do you have any understanding of
> Fuzzy logic at all - I honestly don't mean to be rude of insulting here but
> it seems that you are disagreeing with a particular position without any
> knowledge of what you are disagreeing with.
>
> ELEPHANT: Well now, you might be right about that - my having no idea what
> it is I'm disagreeing with, I mean. You see, all along you and Chris have
> been talking about 'True' and 'False' not capturing the whole picture for
> logic, and about there being in fuzzy logic this other state or logical
> value: 'True and False'; or the "in-between" as you call it, in the passage
> below. Well now, if that's not a third truth-value, and if you aren't
> proposing a tri-value logic, then I really have no idea at all what it is
> you are saying. I don't mean to be rude either, but I have to say that I am
> very puzzled by your remark. It seems to me that as soon as I get you
> pinned down, as to where you are in this argument, you open some hatch in
> the roof and fly off in an escape capsule.
>
> Do you mean that *your* 'fuzzy logic' has nothing at all to do with logical
> reasoning, syllogisms, truth tables, symbolic formulation etc? Ok. I can
> dig it. Now, could you please tell me what you are talking about?
Now look, I'd been always stopping at this point of your essay, I mean it's not
only cracks, is it? I did not reach past this point after four attempts, truly
speaking!
Fuzzy logic is, as the name says already, a logic which is fuzzy, self evident,
isn't it? And a logic, which is fuzzy is not a trivalent logic, as you propose,
but it is FUZZY, it is NOT discrete. It has no a True and a False and an 'in
between' - even then the 'in between' got nothing to do with a 3rd value; fuzzy
logic is analogous - it has strictly speaking ONLY 'in betweens'.
You have to use fuzzy logic INSTEAD of classical logical! You are merging these
both stand-alone considerations of taking choices into one, in a most strange
way, as it seems to me.
Fuzzy logic is NOT equivalent to multivalent logic; it is analogous logic
instead of discrete logic, no matter - concerning discrete - how many choices
you have, may that be two, three, four or multiple (but non-infinite)
possibilities. Thus fuzzy logic is, in a strict sense not being a real workable
concept in human thinking and this is what's being discussed here isn't it?
In technical terms fuzzy logic is/can be expressed with values between 0 and 1.
Of course it's getting idealized, when discrete values are asked for, but in
general it is non-discrete.
I hope you don't feel insulted; in that case I apologize. Only I was permanently
bumping on this point in your writings.
Wish you well,
Regards,
JoVo
countdown: 4
"Hmm, If you ask me, that guy looked a bit like a wizard...well he murmured
something about 'static latching'?! I'd been seeking advice in our manual, they
say a lot about 'latchings' of any kind, but I found no 'static latching'"
"We see for this, when we get to Engineer-town!....Ah!.. well.. It's calming, it
seems!"
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST