Newsgroups: comp.ai.fuzzy,sci.stat.math
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!hardy
From: hardy@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Michael Hardy)
Subject: Re: Fuzzy theory or probability theory?
Message-ID: <Czr4vw.AzB@news.cis.umn.edu>
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: calhoun.stat.umn.edu
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
References: <3af1jc$3fg@nuscc.nus.sg> <3aqfdr$11b1@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <1994Nov22.133236.2771@debet>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 03:12:30 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.fuzzy:3436 sci.stat.math:3282


In article <1994Nov22.133236.2771@debet>
			snf_dw@debet.nhh.no (David Walker) writes:


>Presumably the classical axioms of probability theory are different from the
>Fuzzy Set axioms ?  Because if they weren't, wouldn't one of the systems be
>superflouus ?
>
>I don't say this to be difficult -- I am developing a long term interest in
>alternative axioms, admittedly pretty green at the moment...


	Anyone interested in such axiom systems should probably look at
Richard T. Cox's _Algebra_of_Probable_Inference_ and at the works of Bruno
de Finetti.


	Mike Hardy


