Re: fuzzy logic, quantum logic (fwd)

["Do / Ngoc Minh (ISE)" <n.do@student.canberra.edu.au>]

Dear Anh Viet and Anh Lam,

Base on my understanding, fuzzy logic is different with probability.  
Hence, it is not just another way to interpret probability phenomena.   
Again, here is another classical example:

If there are 100 bottles in which 10 of them contain A and 90 contain B.  
Then we say that the probability of picking up a bottle that contains A 
is 10%.  In fuzzy logic, however if we say the fuzzy value of a bottle 
that has A (a membership value) is 0.1, then it can be interpreted that, 
for example, the concentration of A in the bottle is 10%.

Therefore probability values normally contain the "global" information 
which is related with other "peer objects".  While as, fuzzy values is 
localized to a particular object and represent the uncertainty of its 
degree of belonging to some classes.

Of course, we sometime use the statical information to derive the fuzzy 
membership functions.  But there are many situations, we can not use 
probability to represent the uncertainty.

Cheers,
Minh.

----------------------------------------
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Aiviet Nguyen wrote:

> Hi Anh Lam,
> 
>   Sorry about being late in response. I thought that this topic was discussed
> already well with many experts who are more capable than me.
>   Well, let me expose my ignorance by answering the question.
> 
>   The main difference between fuzzy logic and quantum one is as follows ( 
> according to my perception):
> 
>    The truth value in the fuzzy logic is some WELL-DEFINED value between
> 0 and 1.
>    The truth value in the quantum logic can be only 0 or 1 as in the ordinary
> logic. However, it can be 0 with the probability p and 1 with the probability
> 1-p. If you go to the classical limit by asking that what is the average
> of the truth value you got a "fuzzy" value between 0 and 1.
> 
>   As an example, I would like to mention the well-known example of three
> Gods. One always tells truth, the other always lies and the third one is 
> stupid sometimes telling truth sometimes lies. The third one is the 
> Quantum God. No fuzzy God exists.
>   Fuzziness is just a classical activity to interpret the probability
> phenomena without knowing this science.( Like the attempt to explain
> 3D objects in terms of 2D ones). Sometimes it is simple and useful but it 
> is still far from seeing the underlying mechanism.
>   Don't take all my metaphores too seriously. It is my intension to provoke
> the fuzzy theorists a litle bit. Open your mouth, fuzzy guys!
>   Hope this helps
> Cheers
> Aiviet
>