Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
To   : comp.programming,comp.object
From : Dmitry A. Kazakov
Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 10:53 am

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:18:31 -0500, Chris Sonnack wrote:

> Robert C. Martin writes:
> 
>> Sort of.  Fuzzy logic is 'set' logic where objects have 'partial'
>> membership in sets.  So, Captain Kirk is an 85% member of the set of
>> all good guys, and a 15% member of the set of all bad guys.
> 
> And, insofaras "85%" and "15%" and "good guys" and "bad guys" are
> all (in this context) well-defined (not fuzzy), we're back where
> we started.

Not at all!

1. A side note. Robert's example is not quite precise. In general case X
0.85 in "good guys" does imply X 0.15 in "bad guys". To have this one must
presume that "bad guys" = not "good guys", which is, well, depends... (:-))

2. "good guys" is of course fuzzy. Technically either Captain Kirk or "good
guys" or both should be fuzzy to get 0.85 instead of 1 or 0. Well, assuming
Captain Kirk being a real man... (:-))

3. But let's forget it and say "good guys" is crisp. That wouldn't change
anything because Captain Kirk is still 0.85 in it. What does it *mean* to
be 0.85 good? This meaning is the essence. It is uncertainty you cannot
deal with in a crisp framework. You can do it only symbolically by
postulating existence of uncertainty (either as randomness (0.85 =
probability of), or as fuzziness (0.85 = possibility of), or as other set
measure.) But you cannot look into that measure. You have to carry it with
all the time. And all the answers will be in the terms of that measure. So
in the end after all manipulations you still have: "it is 0.85 right." And?
Is right or wrong? See? It is insoluble.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

.