Its ironic, today we could really use a paper "in defense of fuzzy logic"
What is the difference between fuzzy logic and a Bayesian interpretation of probability?
In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
11–20 of 22 posts
Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#12If you are interested in a deeper dive into the topics covered in this paper I would suggest
"Probability Theory:
The Logic of Science"
by E. T. Jaynes
available athttp://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf
It is probably (ha!) the most enlightening math book I have ever read.
Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#13If you are interested in a deeper dive into the topics covered in this paper I would suggest "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E. T. Jaynes available at http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf It is probably (ha!) the most enlightening math book I have ever read.
It's a very good book. Just be aware that it is very one-sided in favor of the Bayesian view.
Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#14Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#15Its ironic, today we could really use a paper "in defense of fuzzy logic"
What is the difference between fuzzy logic and a Bayesian interpretation of probability?
Bayesian probability addresses uncertainty about whether an event will/did occur, but treats the actual occurrence of the event as a boolean value of {0, 1}.
Fuzzy logic recognizes degrees of occurrence, represented by any number between 0 and 1. Its proponents contend that this allows richer abstraction of the ways that humans actually perceive and reason about the world. In their view, probability is just a special case of fuzzy logic, using artificially restricted truth values.
If you're interested, check out Kosko's "Fuzziness vs. probability." International Journal of General System 17.2-3 (1990): 211-240 http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/Fuzziness_Vs_Probability.pdf
Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#16There's a higher quality PDF available [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13....), it has a credit footnote: "Converted to electronic version by: Roby Joehanes, Kansas State University."
That person already did the OCR cleaning (and the fonts are nicer).
Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#17If you are interested in a deeper dive into the topics covered in this paper I would suggest "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E. T. Jaynes available at http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf It is probably (ha!) the most enlightening math book I have ever read.
It's a very good book. Just be aware that it is very one-sided in favor of the Bayesian view.
That's what makes it a very good book!
Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#18Why is there a glaring typo in the first sentence of the abstract? "In this paper, it is argued that probability theory, when used correctly, is suffrcient for the task of reasoning under uncertainty."
The paper is probably OCRed.
OCR has come a long way, but still has lots to improve.
Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the difference between fuzzy logic and a Bayesian interpretation of probability?
This region is 30% covered vs. there is a 30% chance this region is (read: fully) covered.
I remember hearing this is the correct way to interpret some weather forecasts. 90% rain could mean certain rain over 90% of the area, rather than a 9/10 chance of rain over all the area
Re: In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the difference between fuzzy logic and a Bayesian interpretation of probability?
Bayesian probability addresses uncertainty about whether an event will/did occur, but treats the actual occurrence of the event as a boolean value of {0, 1}. Fuzzy logic recognizes degrees of occurrence, represented by any number between 0 and 1. Its proponents contend that this allows richer abstraction of the ways that humans actually perceive and reason about the world. In their view, probability is just a special…
I see, that makes sense.