Re: 1 NF
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:17:08 +0100 (CET)
"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
> 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