Newsgroups: comp.ai.fuzzy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!dfuess
From: dfuess@netcom.com (David A. Fuess)
Subject: Re: Ok, but what does 'possible' MEAN?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <dfuessD8o7po.DL1@netcom.com>
Sender: dfuess@netcom4.netcom.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: QNews v0.9b3 Beta 14 Apr 1994 Evaluation copy.
References: <3o7dnu$8cf@gutemine.informatik.uni-kiel.de> <joslyn-1105951307370001@sbutler.gsfc.nasa.gov> <3p2cvn$8id@foxbat.pix.za> <3p9tgiINN42d@bhars12c.bnr.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 14:19:30 GMT
Lines: 31

In article <3p9tgiINN42d@bhars12c.bnr.co.uk>
Peter Hamer <pgh@bnr.co.uk> wrote:
> So, just because something has a non-zero probability doesn't mean it is 
bound
> to happen. The simple event "the NEXT toss of a fair coin will be a head" always
> has a probability of 0.5. What is bound to happen is the compound event "at least
> one of the next infinity of tosses will be a head".

Well, the frequency definition of probability states that over a sufficiently  
large sample the event in question WILL occur pn times on the average. So, 
yes, probability does assert that it is bound to happen and provides methods 
to calculate the mean time between occurrences.
 
> I do not recall anything in this thread that suggests that events with non-zero
> possibility are not also inevitable under similar infinite repetition; given 
> an accurate and objective assignment of possibility. [*]

The notion of variable possibility is tied to human perception just like the 
notion of probability (and may be just as imprecise). One speaks of very 
possible or "it's possible but not very probable" (i.e. a notional 
distinction). What is sought in this thread is the definition and 
formalization of these notions.
 
> I'm not trying to argue that all fuzzy manipulation should, or could, be done
> in terms of probabilities. Or even against new fuzzy terms being coined to
> cover existing concepts. Just arguing that false distinctions should not be 
> made between fuzzy terms and probabalistic ones. 

I agree that false distinctions should not be drawn. But one must first have a 
clear understanding of both diciplines before distinction of any kind can be 
discussed.
