Elkan goes wrong -- again
This paper is part of a series of position statements related to a paper of \textit{C. Eikan} [IEEE Expert 9, No. 4, 3-8 (1994; Zbl 1009.03517)] which was intended to give a critical evaluation of the (un-) importance of fuzzy logic (in the wider sense) for AI and knowledge engineering. NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEMost of these statements explain their authors' points of view or sketch some particular approaches toward fuzzy logic and their applications, particularly in fuzzy control and the modeling of uncertainty. The mathematical and methodological defects of Elkan's paper are most clearly explained in the statements given by \textit{D. Dubois} and \textit{H. Prade} [ibid. 9, 15-19 (1994; Zbl 1009.03521)] and by \textit{G. J. Klir} and \textit{B. Yuan} in the present paper.NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEThe series of papers is closed with a reply by Elkan [ibid. 9, 47-49 (1994; Zbl 1009.03533)].
- A better path to duplicating human reasoning
- Partial truth is not uncertainty. Fuzzy logic versus possibilistic logic
- Known concerns about fuzzy logic
- Fuzzy control. A misconception of theory and application
- On the purportedly paradoxical nature of fuzzy logic
- Semantic uncertainty of the fuzzified laws of logic
- Toward a framework for fuzzy dynamic systems
- Elkan's reply. The paradoxical controversy over fuzzy logic
This page was built for publication: Elkan goes wrong -- again
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2771604)