Newsgroups: comp.ai.fuzzy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!decan!sthomas
From: sthomas@decan.com (S. F. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Why complicate things?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Organization: Decision Analytics, Inc.
Message-ID: <DJyoMy.F7x@decan.com>
References: <4ajhhr$1kqk@columba.udac.uu.se> <4b9nqc$ipo@news.nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:13:38 GMT
Lines: 57

Chris Brobeck (brobeck@fox.nstn.ca) wrote:
: In article <4ajhhr$1kqk@columba.udac.uu.se>, palun@strix.udac.uu.se (Ulf Nordlund) says:

: >Why are fuzzy logic texts ("scientific" ones, that is) 
: >so crammed with mathematical symbolism and so devoid 
: >of plain text and simple examples? 

: If you're going to split hairs, you need a real sharp razor.
: The razor is math, and the hair splitting is the basis of academic
: recognition.

: It's unfortunate, since one of the primary objects of fuzzy
: logic (and other soft computing techniques) is to deal with
: real life problems that aren't mathematically tractable, and hence
: are much better described in common language than in a restrictive
: one.

My take on it is that people use the tools that are appropriate
to the task at hand.  Math is a wonderful tool if you want to take care
to say exactly what you mean... which is important in academic
circles, for obvious reasons.  Scientific advance is, after all,
nothing but the process of revising previously held assumptions.
This process is made easier if assumptions are always laid bare
so that they may be prodded, poked, and continually re-examined.
What better language than math to lay bare explicit and implicit
assumptions, and to work out their implications?

At the point, however, where a discipline
becomes of popular interest, and the audience widens to
include vast multitudes, the need changes, and the tools likewise.
Perhaps the interest in fuzzy has broadened to the point where
authors so inclined may get to work writing variations on
"Fuzzy Logic for Dummies" -- no insult intended to the original 
poster; like with the computer books with similar titles, 
there might be a lot of money to be made, and many grateful 
readers. 

All of this is not to defend badly written books, which exist
in all styles -- mathematical, popular, and otherwise.  Believe me,
there are mathematical texts that are a pleasure to read
(eg. Bellman's "Dynamic Programming", Russell's "Principia")
and some "popular" ones that are irredeemably bad (eg. scores 
of books that purport to tell one how to make money trading
stocks and commodities).  If therefore, you find yourself
reading a book where the insights revealed do not repay the
effort of deciphering, do not blame the math which may appear
conveniently to be the culprit.  Blame instead plain old 
bad writing, or a book with a target audience
that does not include the reader.  

: Chris

Cheers!
S. F. Thomas

"It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
 			-- Chinese proverb
