Re: 1 NF
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:56:19 +0200
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.62.0703020152510.3230_at_kruuna.helsinki.fi>
On 2007-03-01, V.J. Kumar wrote:
>> By "real" I meant "real valued". Because of that, there's nothing in
No, because most classical measures are additive. Yet, measure theory
> How would you define a degree of truth in classical logic without
>> 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?
> resorting to any additonal tools which would be cheating?
The way it's done in fuzzy logic, of course. As I said, that's based on a classical foundation.
> How would you define the membership function as measure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_measure_theory
-- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy_at_iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2Received on Fri Mar 02 2007 - 00:56:19 CET