From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Sun Nov 24 1996 - 18:34:24 MST
WeaponsRUs@aol.com (WeaponsRUs@aol.com) writes:
>My main problem with the whole concept is that it seems to require one to
>abandon the *extremely* useful notion of "reductio ad absurdum." That is, I
>can't prove A simply by proving ~ [~A] (i.e., assuming ~A and showing that
>leads to a contradiction. Seems too much to give up.
If you know that A can only have values 0 or 1, then the proof works
the same as without fuzzy logic. If A can reasonably take on other
values, why would you want ~[~A] to imply A = 1?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | | "Don't blame me. I voted pcm@rahul.net | http://www.rahul.net/pcm | for Kodos." - Homer Simpson pcm@quote.com | http://www.quote.com |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:51 MST