logarithms

[Dylan Thurston <dpt@NICOSIA.BERKELEY.EDU>]

On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Steven M. Belknap wrote:

> >la stivn cusku di'e
> >
> >> A challenge to all: produce a gismu which can not be considered to be fuzzy
.
> >
> la xorxes cusku di'e
> >There are some (e.g. dugri, tenfa, sinso, tanjo) for which it wouldn't be
> >very easy to consider them fuzzy.
> >
> No dice. Fuzzy numbers and fuzzy arithmetic can be easily extended to
> logarithms, exponentials, and trigonometric functions by expressing the
> Reimann remainder term at the end of the Taylor Series expansion as a fuzzy
> interval. ...

Certainly operations on fuzzy numbers are well-defined (and quite useful
for, e.g., doing mathematical proofs by computer and keeping track of the
possible error).  But I don't see the relevance.  When I say '2 is the
log base 2 of 4', I'm making an exact statement.  There's no fuzziness
whatsoever about it.  It would be absolutely false to say '2.00000000001
is the log base 2 of 4.'  So the fuzziness you refer to is not due to the
predicate 'dugri', but to the fuzziness of its arguments in some specific
application.

co'o mi'e dilyn.