Re: A Fuzzy Ship from Theseus

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk writes:
 > ...
 > The relevant distinction is the structure of the scale. Ni is bounded
 > at the negative end of the scale and unbounded at the positive end of
 > the scale. True/false in fuzzy logic is bounded at both ends of the
 > scale. True/false, correct/incorrect in English lexical semantics is
 > bounded at the positive (true/correct) end of the scale and unbounded
 > at the negative end. Whichever scale structure you choose for true/false,
 > it's different from the scale structure for ni.

Hum.  The reason {lo ni gusni} is bounded on one end is a absolute
minimum to the amount of brightness:  total darkness, while the absolute
maximum is far beyond our experience.  (At a certain point the energy
density of the photons would create a black hole, I believe.)  But this
is particular to {gusni}.

Is {lo jei broda} equivalent to {lo ni lodu'u broda cu fatci}?  Would
{ka} be more appropriate?

Is the difference that truth values are usually quite near one end of
the scale?

 > ...
 > These, I think, are epistemic, and so not what we're after. They
 > indicate degrees of the speaker's confidence about whether what is
 > asserted is true. Compare:
 >    Maybe it's bluish.
 >    Maybe it's 100% blue.
 >    It's certainly bluish.
 >    It's certainly 100% blue.

Excellent point.  Aren't {traji}, {banli}, {mutce}, {nutli}, and
{milxe} just what's wanted?

(Gismu queries here:  what's the relation of {carmi} and {denmi} to
{mutce}?  Do they just have an indication of what kind of property is
expected?  Why does {mutce} have a place for "in direction", while,
e.g., {milxe} doesn't?  Doesn't the property (the x2 place) imply the
direction?)

 > Steven:
 >  > Consider the (frequently cited) example of birds. Here is my (arbitrary)
 >  > list of things from most birdlike to least:
 >  >
 >  > Eagle, Pigeon, Penguin, Ostrich, Bat, Flying Squirrel, Jack Rabbit.
 >
 > I believe in fuzzy categories, and I recognize that this example is
 > from time to time used to exemplify the notion, but I think it is
 > not in the least fuzzy. Eagles, pigeons, penguins are all indubitably
 > birds, and bats, squirrels are indubitably not birds.

I notice you conveniently left out the ostrich...  I agree the example
is weak, but there is a little fuzziness here, too.  For a more striking
example, is the platypus a mammal?

 > ...
 > This is not necessarily the standard view, but at any rate it's what I
 > teach my students.

Wow, do we have a live professor on the list?  You teach logic, I take
it?

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.