# Re: 1 NF

From: V.J. Kumar <vjkmail_at_gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:17:08 +0100 (CET)

Message-ID: <Xns98E68726C80C7vdghher_at_194.177.96.26>

> That's not what I was arguing for. Of course a fuzzy set is different

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:17:08 +0100 (CET)

Message-ID: <Xns98E68726C80C7vdghher_at_194.177.96.26>

"Sampo Syreeni" <decoy_at_iki.fi> wrote in news:1172733524.671700.195990 _at_k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> By "real" I meant "real valued". Because of that, there's nothing in

*> fuzzy set theory you couldn't handle with rather boring and classical
**> measure theoretic tools.
*

Are you saying that the membership function is just another name for the classical measure ?

*>
*

>> >The theory of real functions, measures and the like is then >> > formulated on top of normal ZFC axiomatics. >> >> They cannot be so formulated, because the fuzzy set membership is >> different from the the classical set membership and reducible only in >> the trivial case of the fuzzy membership coinciding with the classical >> membership.

*>*> That's not what I was arguing for. Of course a fuzzy set is different

*> from a classical one. But this still doesn't change the fact that at**> the bottom, it's defined in terms of classical logic, set theory and**> measures.*How would you define the membership function as measure ?

> We have an extra layer of indirection, yes, but it adds

*> little interesting to the overall picture.
**>
**>
*

Received on Thu Mar 01 2007 - 19:17:08 CET