Abstract
Entemann (2002) defends fuzzy logic by pointing to what he calls “misconceptions” concerning fuzzy logic. However, some of these ‘;misconceptions’ are in fact truths, and it is Entemann who has the misconceptions. The present article points to mistakes made by Entemann in three different areas. It closes with a discussion of what sort of general considerations it would take to motivate fuzzy logic.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Entemann, C. (2000). A Fuzzy Logic with Interval Truth Values. International Journal of Fuzzy Sets and Systems 113: 161–183.
Entemann, C. (2002). Fuzzy Logic: Misconceptions and Clari cations. Articial Intelligence Review 17: 65–84.
Hájek, P. (1998). Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Kenevan, J. & Neapolitan, R. (1992). A Model Theoretic Approach to Propositional Fuzzy Logic Using Beth Tableaux. In Zadeh, L. & Kacprzyk, J. (eds. )Fuzzy Logic for the Management of Uncertainty, 141–157. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, R. (1972). Fuzzy Logic and the Resolution Principle. Journal of the ACM 19: 109–119.
Morgan, C. & Pelletier, F. J. (1977). Some Notes Concerning Fuzzy Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 79–97.
Pelletier, F. J. (1994). Fuzzy Logic: A Misplaced Appeal. IEEE Expert 9: 29–31.
Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8: 338–353.
Zadeh, L. (1988). Dispositional Logic and Commonsense Reasoning. Tech Report CSLI-88–117, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pelletier, F.J. On Some Alleged Misconceptions about Fuzzy Logic. Artificial Intelligence Review 22, 71–82 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AIRE.0000044308.48654.c1
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AIRE.0000044308.48654.c1