Eric Seeley wrote:
>
> I agree whole heartedly with Andrews assesment of fuzzy logic.. I have
> always felt that the development of "fuzzy" algorithms was driven by a need
> to control a system in which the person(s) doing the design work didn't have
> a solid understanding of basic control design techniques and lacked the
> background, or just the patience, to model the physical systems.  One final
> thought..Please, when refering to something as "optimal" state what is
> optimal with respect to. i.e. speed, control effort, cost, looks, smell..you
> get the idea..
>
> Eric

Eric: It's just not true. Most people doing this stuff can do the math
or get it done. The application of fuzzy logic isn't easier that other
techniques, and I don't really recall that being the usual selling
point. Many companies brag that their software yeilds the easiest fuzzy
logic solutions, but (as you suggested) to what is this compared?

Most importantly, using fuzzy logic enables one to model the system
differently. It's still a perfectly valid model if done correctly.
Anyway, most real world systems cannot actually be modeled with
classical mathematical solutions. The solutions (& the techniques for
derivation) don't exist in any practical form. Instead, most designs
substitute an acceptable tested model such as a PID algorithm or a
statistical approximation (which scares the bejesus out of me).

Actually, your final thought was the most compelling. Maybe we need a
list of all the aspects of a system or its development that can be
optimal in some sense. I don't recall ever seeing a compilation..

-- Tom