"Lotfi A. Zadeh" wrote:
> ... Third, is to interpret " approximately a" as a fuzzy set or,
> equivalently, as a possibility distribution. Alternatively, the fuzzy
> set may be interpreted as a random set or a conditional probability of
> concept of maximum.
> ...
> In conclusion, of the three possible interpretations, the
> one that is the best fit to the way in which humans form perceptions, is
> the fuzzy set interpretation. ...
Lotfi,
Long ago at a university far, far away (CMU), I did a thesis that reported
several medium scale experiments [O(1000) trials] on humans -- well, engineers
with graduate degrees -- that bear directly on your statement. My evidence
showed that humans can be induced to overcome classic KST cognitive biases and
agree with Bayesian updating. My method was to generate linguistic explanations
of applications of Bayes rule.
If your assertion is supported by similar evidence, it may be that
_any_ rule of combination can be made to appear to "best fit to the
way in which humans form perceptions." Perhaps all one has to do is
use linguistic terms.
Can you provide a citation describing experiments supporting the
conclusion you state above?
Thanks.
chris
PS In related analysis in my thesis I found that sharp intervals worked just
fine for selecting English language expressions of uncertainty. In fact, for a
certain set of terms ("certain" being one of them), there was remarkable
structure in the intervals (e.g., bi-modal symmetry in the width of the
intervals).
--
Christopher Elsaesser 703.883.6563 (office)
Mail Stop W432
The MITRE Corporation
7515 Colshire Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102-7508
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound
they make as they fly by." -- Douglas Adams
