Proginoskes wrote: > C6L1V@shaw.ca wrote: > > email@example.com wrote: > > > Fuzzy set theory was quite popular in the sense that it captured the > > > popular imagination. I think Japan even built a microprocessor based on > > > it. What happened? > > > > It exploded, It is applied in many areas such as camera focussing, > > controllers of all types, etc. Just do a simple Google search to see > > the vast variety of applications that have been suggested or > > implemented already. Having said that, I must admit that I am still a > > skeptic. At a conference, I once discussed with a control systems > > expert the reason why fuzzy controllers are used and sometimes have > > performance that exceeds that of ordinary controllers. His claim (and I > > have no independent verification of this) is that fuzzy controllers > > tend to monitor the system very closely---more closely that typical > > classical controllers---and so use better estimates of the "state". > > Their use of better information results in better performance, or so he > > said. > > The only problem is that, in order to get something that works in the > physical realm, you need to assign specific values to some fuzzy > concepts. (A concept called "defuzzification".) > > Fuzzy logic may be the best way to find these values, but in the end, > we're back at deterministic algorithms.
As a couple of posters have pointed out, "deterministic" is the wrong word above. I should have said something like "traditional logic" instead.
Also, the above represent opinions formed only from reading Bart Kosko's _Fuzzy Thinking_. He didn't seem to really "sell" me on the idea of fuzzy logic in that book.