At this juncture it is important to point out the distinction between
fuzzy systems and probability. Both operate over the same numeric
range, and at first glance both have similar values: 0.0 representing
False (or non-membership), and 1.0 representing True (or membership).

However, there is a distinction to be made between the two statements:
The probabilistic approach yields the natural-language statement,
"There is an 80%% chance that Jane is old," while the fuzzy terminology
corresponds to "Jane's degree of membership within the set of old
people is 0.80." The semantic difference is significant: the first
view supposes that Jane is or is not old (still caught in the Law of
the Excluded Middle); it is just that we only have an 80%% chance of
knowing which set she is in. By contrast, fuzzy terminology supposes
that Jane is "more or less" old, or some other term corresponding to
the value of 0.80. There are more very technical ways to show how
comparing probibility with fuzzy degrees of truth and falsehood don't
match.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:13:25 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 21, 3:13 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

Why?, they are both disappointingly vague.

"Do, or do not, there is no try" - Yoda.
Yoda was obviously a digital guy.

I think I'll go have some chocolate.

Dave.

On Aug 20, 11:20 pm, "David L. Jones" gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUL5dCIqOEg

On Aug 21, 4:26 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

You appear to be seriously in need of a date.
Try here:
http://www.match.com

Here is an old out of print book on fuzzy,
my book "Fuzzy Logic A Practical Approach".
http://www.fuzzysys.com/books/FLLib/FUZZYPDF/FUZZYLOG.PDF
and the old demo programs from the book :
http://www.fuzzysys.com/books/FLLib/PC/PRACTAPP/PRACTAPP.zip
you must unzip it and run install.exe.

and here is the typo list for the book :
http://www.fuzzysys.com/typolist.html

The products mentioned are no longer for sale.
If you have any problems accessing these items,
let me know.

--
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
******************************************
"I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe."
- Leo Rosten
******************************************

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:13:25 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

More like: Wrong Think! Why, OH WHY can't this number tyranny be broken,
overthrown and put in it's place once and for all. Physics awaken! You
guys know somewhere deep down or up shallow this is fuzzy true, more or
less, to some degree, sorta, kinda. Your science has been pointing that
way now for years.

There are not two "types" of thinking. This is a self-serving position.
'Types' demands numerical amounts. 1-99 and 0/1 (100%%) are the same
thing, a numerical concept into which all must be classified, by force if
need be. It's one way to think about thinking and only that.