• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fuzzy Logic

Andonyx said:

To me though this is just an example of why Boolean logic suffices for almost everything you can do with a computer. I've never run into a computer problem I couldn't eventually solve by using booleans and nested "if then" statements.

As far as the apple I figure the routine would run something like:

Procedure "Apple?"
..If Red then
....If Round then
......If Shiny then
........If sweet then
.......... If whole then "Yes"
..........Else "HowMuch"
........Else "No"
......Else "No"
....Else "No"
..Else "No"

Procedure "HowMuch"
..If amount > / = 50% then "Yes"
..Else "No"

Procedure "Yes."
..Lprint "Yes, it is an apple"

Procedure "No."
..Lprint "No, not an apple."
Click to expand...

So a cherry passes as an apple?
Or a piece of red, round, shiny and sweet candy?
 
T'ai Chi said:


So a cherry passes as an apple?
Or a piece of red, round, shiny and sweet candy?
Click to expand...

My program wasn't meant as a complete apple evaluating source,smart ass, I was adressing the question about how to break down when it crosses the line between an apple or a core into a binary measure.
 
I've got to agree... Fuzzy logic was hardly revolutionary even when it was new - though people seemed to think it was. You see examples of the same thing in computer programming every single day; some new feature or product that's going to revolutionize the industry. Few do.

Fuzzy logic is basically just using thresholds instead of hard limits, which had been done long before we had a name for it. I've certainly never seen an implementation of fuzzy logic that could be called interesting.

In just about any computer programming I've ever done, the real beauty is in finding a sublime solution to a particular problem. There's many, many examples of these in computer progamming. Certain problems crop up again and again and when a new, elegant solution is provided, it makes people famous. Consider, for example, classic pathfinding programs, and some of the really sexy pathfinding algorithms that have come out of that. A*, dijkstra's algorithm, etc.

Of course, I should say that I had the same impression of Object-oriented programming at first. "This is nothing we haven't done for years... why is everyone so excited?" And eventually your mind comes to understand that it's a new paradigm, and you begin to think about problems from a whole new angle.

I doubt, though, that it's a lack of true understanding that makes fuzzy logic seem so "Well, duh" to you. It really is.
 
Does anyone know enough to compare fuzzy logic with game theory? I've always thought they were similar.

Both make a decision based on a slightly unknown quantity (a sliding scale truth or the opponent in the game). As people have pointed out, fuzzy logic can maybe be broken down into a series of non-fuzzy decisions. It seems like fuzzy logic might just be another way of stating a game theory problem.
 
Soapy Sam said:
I'm a fan of the view that logically there are three types of statement- True, False and Meaningless. This takes care of all paradoxical statements at a stroke.
Click to expand...

I suppose "Meaningless" takes care of things like "This statement is false"? If so, how would you classify "This statement is meaningless"?

Anyway a shortcoming of True/False logic might be, say, in an expert system for medical diagnosis; a traditional logical statement might be

if PatientsTemperature > 99.0, then PatientHasAFever.

In the real world, a temperature over 99 would mean that the patient "sort of" has a fever, and this shade of gray would be considered when looking for indications of meningitis.
 
Phildonnia- That's a good one. I would also assign it to the meaningless class, but you then have two distinguishable usages of the word "meaningless";- one in the example, one in the system used to examine the example. This, I think , is what Suggestologist referred to as "confusion of logical types."
 
Soapy Sam said:
quote: (Quoted by Suggestologist)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The traditional line of argument in double bind theory is that such interactions involve a confusion of communicative levels, or logical types, and that the participant(s) in the double bind interaction gradually internalize this confusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a jolly fine practical example of this, study Interesting Ian's thread on free will in the philosophy area, ignoring my erroneous input and carefully monitoring Paul C. Anagnostopolous' increasing frustration.

ps Is "double bind" correct, or should it be "blind"?
Click to expand...

Bind is a 4-letter word. A simple example of a double-bind sometimes used by sales people is: "Would you rather pay by check or credit?" Either way, the presupposition is that you will buy the item. You offer two alternatives that lead to the same outcome. Any choice among the options offered, isn't a real choice. Double-bind is sometimes called the "illusion of choice".

To challenge this double-bind, you must go up a logical level; and for example, say, "Oh, I'm not buying the vaccuum cleaner."

To confuse things even more; some people would call the above example (just) a bind because both options appear to be at the same logical level.

The two (or more) options in the (schizophrenial) double-bind occur at different logical levels. Typically, one occurs at a verbal level, while another occurs at a nonverbal level. Although it's not the only conceptualization, the authors of the original article on the double-bind theory of schizophrenia thought of verbal and nonverbal messages as occuring at different logical levels; such that nonverbal messages are at a higher level. The result is that in schizophrenia, according to this theory, there is no possible solution. You can't go up a logical level, because there's already an injunction at that level. And you can't follow through with the verbal command, because there is an injunction at a higher logical level. This leads to massive confusion and inability to construct a clear goal for one's action.
 
Suggestologist said:


Bind is a 4-letter word. A simple example of a double-bind sometimes used by sales people is: "Would you rather pay by check or credit?" Either way, the presupposition is that you will buy the item. You offer two alternatives that lead to the same outcome. Any choice among the options offered, isn't a real choice. Double-bind is sometimes called the "illusion of choice".

To challenge this double-bind, you must go up a logical level; and for example, say, "Oh, I'm not buying the vaccuum cleaner."

To confuse things even more; some people would call the above example (just) a bind because both options appear to be at the same logical level.

The two (or more) options in the (schizophrenial) double-bind occur at different logical levels. Typically, one occurs at a verbal level, while another occurs at a nonverbal level. Although it's not the only conceptualization, the authors of the original article on the double-bind theory of schizophrenia thought of verbal and nonverbal messages as occuring at different logical levels; such that nonverbal messages are at a higher level. The result is that in schizophrenia, according to this theory, there is no possible solution. You can't go up a logical level, because there's already an injunction at that level. And you can't follow through with the verbal command, because there is an injunction at a higher logical level. This leads to massive confusion and inability to construct a clear goal for one's action.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good time for "MU".
 
Suggestologist-

Thanks for the explanation. In the context of JREF, I'm so used to seeing the expression "double- blind", that I was unsure if I was misunderstanding a correct term or being perplexed by a typo.

Odd, now I think of it, I have often seen "bind" in print as a verb, but not as a noun. "Binding" seems commoner these days, except in phrases like "in a bind".


Now what is MU?
 
Soapy Sam said:

I think why FL seems radical to some is precisely because we have grown NOT to expect such analog shading in electronics, having conditioned young engineers to see problems from a digital point of view. Had someone proposed "fuzzy logic" in 1950, I suspect it would have seemed mainstream rather than revolutionary.
Click to expand...

All I see is a points system. Points systems have been very popular for a number of years, especially when it comes to OS design. Personally, as a programmer, I see nothing special.
 
phildonnia said:


You know,

MU
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. In the original article on the double-bind theory of schizophrenia, the authors noted that the Zen Koan system puts people into double-binds; they can't answer either one (obvious) option, the other (obvious) option, both options, nor neither option; nor can they not answer -- without being hit by the instructor's stick. Some consider such instruction to teach people how to pull themselves out of double-binds.

One typical form of double-bind in the family system is: do as I say, not as I do; or even better: do as I say, not as I am indicating that you should do at a nonverbal level (by posture, tone of voice, gesture, etc); or: believe what I say, not what I demonstrate that I believe (as in drug abusing parents who want their kids to stay away from drugs).

A simple example that works well in print (without needing an explicit description of the associated nonverbal behavior) is the command: "Be spontaneous." Well, if you're spontaneous after someone says that, then you aren't really being spontaneous - you're following instructions. And if you don't even try to act spontaneous, you're not being spontaneous either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom