Talk:Formal fuzzy logic: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Ragnar Schroder
No edit summary
imported>Greg Woodhouse
(The intro is way to difficult - yes and no)
Line 10: Line 10:
|                  by = [[User:Ragnar Schroder|Ragnar Schroder]] 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
|                  by = [[User:Ragnar Schroder|Ragnar Schroder]] 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
}}
}}
==The intro is way to difficult==
The intro should be simple,  so that the general audience can at least get a vague idea of what it's all about.
The current one is way to heavy.
[[User:Ragnar Schroder|Ragnar Schroder]] 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
:There is a separate article entitled, I believe, [[Fuzzy logic]] that is meant to provide an overview. Even so, as this article evolves, I hope that it is fleshed out with a bit more exposition. Right now, it mostly summarizes basic definitions without really saying much about how they fit together and why fuzzy logic is being developed along these lines. To my mind, it also needs to say a bit more about "big issues" like the arbitrariness of the t-norm, and the extent to which basic results for classical logic (completeness, compactness, decidabiity results, etc.) extend to fuzzy logic. What (if anything) can be said about categoricity? [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 11:04, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 10:04, 3 July 2007


Article Checklist for "Formal fuzzy logic"
Workgroup category or categories Mathematics Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? Not specified
Basic cleanup done? No
Checklist last edited by Ragnar Schroder 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





The intro is way to difficult

The intro should be simple, so that the general audience can at least get a vague idea of what it's all about.

The current one is way to heavy.

Ragnar Schroder 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

There is a separate article entitled, I believe, Fuzzy logic that is meant to provide an overview. Even so, as this article evolves, I hope that it is fleshed out with a bit more exposition. Right now, it mostly summarizes basic definitions without really saying much about how they fit together and why fuzzy logic is being developed along these lines. To my mind, it also needs to say a bit more about "big issues" like the arbitrariness of the t-norm, and the extent to which basic results for classical logic (completeness, compactness, decidabiity results, etc.) extend to fuzzy logic. What (if anything) can be said about categoricity? Greg Woodhouse 11:04, 3 July 2007 (CDT)