Chuck McManis wrote:
>
> Walter wrote:
>  > 2) Fuzzy logic has a mathematical basis that is not found in conventional
>  >    systems.
>
> If "conventional systems" means systems composed entirely of algebraic
 notation
> I agree with you, however if you read a "fuzzy" logic text and a group theory
> mathematical text you will quickly be able to translate between the two.

Fuzzy logic doesn't compete with conventional systems (Non Fuzzy). In practice
fuzzy logic is the manipulation of lingustic variables. Lingustic variables
are not normally found in comventional systems.

> Note that I hold no bias either for or against fuzzy logic. I took the time
> a while back to become intimately familiar with the process, the
> terminology, and the roots of the methodology. It can be used to express
> a set of feedback control parameters more intuitively than perhaps some
> other methods, once reduced to practice it cannot produce a "better" result
> than a tradiional approach from someone skilled in the art.

All depends what the definition of "better" is. Appropriate use of lingustic
variables can reduce the complexity of a solution. Lingustic variable
manipulation is often less computation intensive than calculations with
their crisp conterparts.  A parallel is the relationship between floating
point and fized point math.

As a Japanese friend of mine said over diner a few months ago in Tokyo, "Fuzzy
logic is now another tool in an extensive tool box". He is a person who has
implemented many applications some using both linguistic variables and
conventional variables and logic.  For me it has allowed me to easily solve
some problems that were extremely difficult to find solutions with other
techniques available to me.

I suppost it finally boils down to using linguistic variables in
applications or not.  I use them where appropriate.


Walter Banks