Newsgroups: comp.ai.fuzzy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.ecn.bgu.edu!feenix.metronet.com!jbeaudry
From: jbeaudry@metronet.com (John Beaudry)
Subject: Re: Continuous vs. piecewise-linear MBFs
Message-ID: <CzFGnH.M2A@metronet.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 19:54:53 GMT
References: <3adrr6$28k@news.tamu.edu>
Organization: Texas Metronet, Internet for the Individual  214-705-2901 (info)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 34

Vance Quinton Harral (vqharral@eesun1.tamu.edu) wrote:
: Hello Netters,

: Membership functions can arguably be divided into two general categories:

:    1. Continuous (e.g. fugoid, gaussian)
:    2. Piecewise-linear (e.g. triangles, trapezoids)

: The "conventional wisdom" where I work is that the piecewise-linear variety
: perform just as well as the continuous variety, and that this form is used
: in most fuzzy applications because it reduces the complexity of evaluating
: the MBFs at virtually no expense in performance.

: However, despite the fact that all the people I have asked seem to prefer
: the piecewise-linear variety, noone has been able to quote a textbook or
: journal article which formally makes the claim that these MBFs are "just
: as good" as continuous MBFs.

: Does anyone know of such a reference?

: Of course, I welcome a lively debate here on the net, but I would really 
: appreciate pointers to published references which address this topic.

: Regards,
: VQ

: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Vance Q. Harral                      "What this country needs is a good
: Dep't of Electrical Engineering       five-dollar plasma weapon"
: Texas A&M University               
: College Station, TX 77843            E-mail: vqharral@eesun1.tamu.edu

: -------------------------------------------------------------------------

