On some alleged misconceptions about fuzzy logic
The author corrects some false claims in a paper by \textit{C. W. Entemann} [Artif. Intell. Rev. 17, 65--84 (2002; Zbl 0998.03023)] attributed from that author to the present one. These claims concern fuzzy logic and their relationship to classical logic and to proof systems. \{Reviewers remark: In view of the remarkable development of the field of t-norm-based mathematical fuzzy logics during approximately the last decade it is more than only astonishing that both authors restrict their remarks to the old-fashioned and ``poor system of fuzzy logic which knows only the min-conjunction, the max-disjunction, and the \((1-\dots)\)-negation.\}
- Fuzzy logic or Lukasiewicz logic: A clarification
- Fuzzy logic: Misconceptions and clarifications
- Fuzzy logic versus classical logic: an example in multiplicative ideal theory
- The paradoxical success of fuzzy logic
- Fuzzy logic. A misplaced appeal
- Comments on some theories of fuzzy computation
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 6831492 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4079381 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 979859 (Why is no real title available?)
- Vagueness and formal fuzzy logic: some criticisms
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1423082 (Why is no real title available?)
- Comments to ``Paradoxes of fuzzy logic, revisited
- Means-end relations and a measure of efficacy
- Addendum to: ``A fuzzy logic for the revised drastic product t-norm
This page was built for publication: On some alleged misconceptions about fuzzy logic
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1768896)
