Newsgroups: comp.ai.fuzzy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcom15!kpm
From: kpm@netcom.com (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: Kosko
In-Reply-To: mscarton@mudshark.sunquest.com's message of Fri, 7 Jul 1995 18:49:35 GMT
Message-ID: <KPM.95Jul8090812@netcom15.netcom.com>
Sender: kpm@netcom15.netcom.com
Organization: NETCOM On-line services
References: <95062615443120@bridge.dia.unisa.it>
	<mscarton.305.2FFD81BF@mudshark.sunquest.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 16:08:11 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <mscarton.305.2FFD81BF@mudshark.sunquest.com> mscarton@mudshark.sunquest.com (Mark A. Scarton) writes:
>
>In article <95062615443120@bridge.dia.unisa.it> gerla@bridge.dia.unisa.it writes:
>>Kosko's position is that probability is contained in fuzzy logic. On the
>>basis of such a claim is the interpretation of the quantity 
>>                     S(A,B)=M(A\intB)/M(A) 
>>as the inclusion degree of the set A in B (M(X) denotes the number of
>>elements of X, \int the intersection operator). Now, I think that such an
>>interpretation is misleading in account of the following paradoxes.
>
>There have been numerous articles on this topic, going into depth on both the
>mathematical and the intuitive aspects.  I'd recommend a copy of Klir's article
>on the topic that discusses his debate in Cambridge.  Unfortunately both
>my copy of the article and the containing bibliography are at home (and also
>unfortunately, I am not ;-).  I believe that it was published in IJ of Fuzzy 
>Sets and Systems, sometime in the '88-9 timeframe.  I'd also recommend the
>discussion in _Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information Theory_.
>
> [...]

Care to post a summary of what you have learned?

--
Keith Morgan | kpm@netcom.com
-- 
Keith Morgan | kpm@netcom.com
