[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote: > Jordan DeLong writes an admirable post, but then undercuts it with: > > > [1] even in fuzzy logics this has nothing to do with anything. My > > understanding is that a logic with infinite truth values ranging > > 0-1 considers the value of the expression to be a measure of our > > certainty of its truth (or whatever). > > No, certainty is neither here nor there; it is "truthishness" that's > at stake. A better way to view it is to map all talk of truth into > talk of set membership: a car is blue iff it belongs to the set of blue > things. Now we can understand a fuzzy-logic claim that "the car is blue" > being 90% true by mapping it to a fuzzy-set-theory claim that the car > 90% belongs to the set of blue things. Why would this be the case? 1. Because the car is blue 90% of the time, as it's constantly flickering colors? 2. Because we've never seen the car but we're 90% certain it's blue? 3. Because 90% of its surface is blue? 4. Because its color is objectively 90% blue? 5.Because 90% of survey respondents called it blue? -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();