|
Add to Interest Profile
Edit Interest Profile
Email This Message
Search
| Dear Jass Singh ji, It is very good to see you again. Please accept my apologies that I have not been actve on this forum for some time as I was away on vacation. I hope you are doing well in your persuance of your Masters degree. I am sure a man of your intelligence and dedication will succeed in your academic endeavors. I will pray in front of my Guru for your success. I hope that my action of praying for your success does not offend you, as you find my Guru contradictory. I wish to remind you that in our last encounter I introduced you to a relatively new form of logic called Fuzzy logic. Here is the link to my post Fuzzy Logic Tutorial - For Jass Singhji http://www.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/All+by+Date/ED6CB99B70CF86B487256C3C0010403B?OpenDocument Unfortunately it seems that due to your busy schedule you have not found the time to respond to that thread. I was earlier tempted to accuse you of escapism, when the heat gets too much for you, but am sure that a man of your courage and dedication would never do such a thing, even if you are still somewhat afraid not to post under an assumed Sikh name. I shall reproduce brief excerpts of Fuzzy Logic from that post to put an end to your repeated fallacious assertions about the SGGS. I do not know what yuour academic background is, but if you are faintly aware of Computer Science, I am sure you would have heard about Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems. One of the greatest challenges of computer Scientists around the world is to make a computer to behave, think and act like a human. Unfortunately all have failed miserably due to the limitations of translating human thought and language into classical logic. Computers are basically based upon a Binary logic system, in which there exists just two possible states of 0 and 1, which can also be interpreted as True and False. The True and False paradigm fails miserably when it comes to designing expert systems. Here is an example of why (reproduced from my original post on Fuzzy Logic). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -THE PROBLEM: REAL-WORLD VAGUENESS Natural language abounds with vague and imprecise concepts, such as "Sally is tall," or "It is very hot today." Such statements are difficult to translate into more precise language without losing some of their semantic value: for example, the statement "Sally's height is 152 cm." does not explicitly state that she is tall, and the statement "Sally's height is 1.2 standard deviations about the mean height for women of her age in her culture" is fraught with difficulties: would a woman 1.1999999 standard deviations above the mean be tall? Which culture does Sally belong to, and how is membership in it defined? While it might be argued that such vagueness is an obstacle to clarity of meaning, only the most staunch tradtionalists would hold that there is no loss of richness of meaning when statements such as "Sally is tall" are discarded from a language. Yet this is just what happens when one tries to translate human language into classic logic. Such a loss is not noticed in the development of a payroll program, perhaps, but when one wants to allow for natural language queries, or "knowledge representation" in expert systems, the meanings lost are often those being searched for. For example, when one is designing an expert sstem to mimic the diagnostic powers of a physician, one of the major tasks i to codify the physician's decision-making process. The designer soon learns that the physician's view of the world, despite her dependence upon precise, scientific tests and measurements, incorporates evaluations of symptoms, and relationships between them, in a "fuzzy," intutive manner: deciding how much of a particular medication to administer will have as much to do with the physician's sense of the relative "strength" of the patient's symptoms as it will their height/weight ratio. While some of the decisions and calculations could be done using traditional logic, we will see how fuzzy systems affords a broader, richer field of data and the manipulation of that data than do more traditional methods. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Please re-read - "Yet this is just what happens when one tries to translate human language into classic logic" The Sikh Gurus were evolved humans in touch with God, but wrote in a Human Language for lesser humans like you and me to understand. I doubt any of us can deny that. Classical logic fails to determine if a person is tall or not, as described above, so I doubt if it can translate something as divine and deep as the SGGS. The above paragraphs clearly indicate that natural Languages have a severe limitation to describe the "real world vagueness". Applying traditional logic on real world vagueness has always been an accepted failure. Hence your attempts to classify the SGGS as flawed, falls flat as the tools you have used are accepted to be flawed as per modern science. The ancient Greeks themselves recognized that Aristotles Logical systems to define human thought were flawed. It was Plato who is considered to be the Father of Fuzzy Logic, when he said it is possible for things to be partially true and partially false. Please re-read this excerpt from my original post. ------------------------------------------------------------------ HISTORIC FUZZINESS The precision of mathematics owes its success in large part to the efforts of Aristotle and the philosophers who preceded him. In their efforts to devise a concise theory of logic, and later mathematics, the so-called "Laws of Thought" were posited [7]. One of these, the "Law of the Excluded Middle," states that every proposition must either be True or False. Even when Parminedes proposed the first version of this law (around 400 B.C.) there were strong and immediate objections: for example, Heraclitus proposed that things could be simultaneously True and not True. It was Plato who laid the foundation for what would become fuzzy logic, indicating that there was a third region (beyond True and False) where these opposites "tumbled about." Other, more modern philosophers echoed his sentiments, notably Hegel, Marx, and Engels. But it was Lukasiewicz who first proposed a systematic alternative to the bi-valued logic of Aristotle [8]. In the early 1900's, Lukasiewicz described a three-valued logic, along with the mathematics to accompany it. The third value he proposed can best be translated as the term "possible," and he assigned it a numeric value between True and False. Eventually, he proposed an entire notation and axiomatic system from which he hoped to derive modern mathematics. Later, he explored four-valued logics, five-valued logics, and then declared that in principle there was nothing to prevent the derivation of an infinite-valued logic. Lukasiewicz felt that three- and infinite-valued logics were the most intriguing, but he ultimately settled on a four-valued logic because it seemed to be the most easily adaptable to Aristotlean logic. Knuth proposed a three-valued logic similar to Lukasiewicz's, from which he speculated that mathematics would become even more elegant than in traditional ?bi-valued logic. His insight, apparently missed by Lukasiewicz, was to use the integral range [-1, 0 +1] rather than [0, 1, 2]. Nonetheless, this alternative failed to gain acceptance, and has passed into relative obscurity. It was not until relatively recently that the notion of an infinite-valued logic took hold. In 1965 Lotfi A. Zadeh published his seminal work "Fuzzy Sets" ([12], [13]) which described the mathematics of fuzzy set theory, and by extension fuzzy logic. This theory proposed making the membership function (or the values False and True) operate over the range of real numbers [0.0, 1.0]. New operations for the calculus of logic were proposed, and showed to be in principle at least a generalization of classic logic. It is this theory which we will now discuss. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It is unfortunate that many evangelists still live in the dark ages and fail to accept Modern Science and research. Jass ji, I demand that you first prove the validity of your Bi-Logical systems (A and not A). Without doing so you so called "Contradictions" have no validity whatsoever. I propose that until Jass ji proves the validity of his tools, that no further discussion on this topic be allowed. To do so I all advise our dear brother Jass, to disprove the widely accepted system of Fuzzy Logic which allows for an infinite number of degrees of True and False to exist as so eloquently put in the references I supplied. My dear Jass ji, do not get me wrong, I admire your dedication in trying to evangelise, but to do so, I demand that you use the path of Truth (single state Truth, not bi or tri state..). Until you prove the invalidity of Plato and many other great Mathematicians of the world, all of you statements (all 18 of them) on the SGGS are hereby demolished. Classical Logic is flawed and cannot be applied. Until you disprove otherwise all your other arguments are hereby disproved. I am tempted to end this post with a QED, but shall refrain from doing so.... :) I hope you will not propose another break as you did the last time, and take up the challenge to either stand up for the falsities you have attempted to preach upon the Sikh masses. or accept your mistake. A real man of principle and conviction accepts when he was wrong. I am very sure you will do so as well. May Waheguru bless you with eternal happiness. Bhul Chuk Maaf Vikram Singh Massachussets USA |
| Some questions...... (Jaspreet S Jodhka - 23.Nov.02) | |
| . . Re: Some questions...... (M Singh - 23.Nov.02) | |
| . . Re: Some questions...... (Jass Singh - 24.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . Re: Elephant & the Blind ... (Jass Singh - 26.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Jass Singh - 27.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Manveerbabbar S Singh - 28.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Jass Singh - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Soormasher Singh - 3.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Jass Singh - 3.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Nihal S Singh - 4.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Soormasher Singh - 4.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Jass Singh - 7.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Soormasher Singh - 7.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Jass Singh - 7.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Soormasher Singh - 8.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Soormasher Singh - 9.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Jass Singh - 9.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Soormasher Singh - 9.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Jasjit T Ahluvalia - 7.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...- Mo... (Jass Singh - 7.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Nihal S Singh - 26.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Jaspreet S Jodhka - 26.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Jaspreet S Jodhka - 26.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Lakwinder Singh - 26.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Jass Singh - 26.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Nihal S Singh - 27.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Jass Singh - 27.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Nihal S Singh - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Jass Singh - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jass's Queries... (M Singh - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Jass's Queries... (Jass Singh - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Jass's Queries... (M Singh - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Jass's Queries... (Jass Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Jass's Queries... (M Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Jass's Queries... (Jass Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Question Remains Unan... (M Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: The Question Remains ... (Jass Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: The Question Remains ... (Soormasher Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: The Question Remains ... (Jass Singh - 1.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: The Question Remains ... (Lakwinder Singh - 1.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: The Question Remains ... (Soormasher Singh - 3.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: The Question Remains ... (Jass Singh - 3.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So the Agenda Becomes Cle... (M Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: So the Agenda Becomes... (Jass Singh - 1.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: So the Agenda Becomes... (Balbir S Khanuja - 2.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: So the Agenda Becomes... (G1 Singh - 2.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: So the Agenda Becomes... (Jass Singh - 2.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: So the Agenda Becomes... (G1 Singh - 3.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: The Question Remains ... (Prabhu S Khalsa - 1.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 18 "Contradictions" D... (Soormasher Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
 | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Jass's Queries... (Vikramjit Singh - 30.Nov.02) |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Nihal S Singh - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Jass Singh - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Nihal S Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Chandran Gangadharan - 29.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions --Fait... (Jass Singh - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions --Fait... (Chandran Gangadharan - 30.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions --Fait... (Chandran Gangadharan - 2.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions --Fait... (Jass Singh - 2.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions --Fait... (Js Singh - 3.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions --Fait... (Lakwinder Singh - 4.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions --Fait... (Js Singh - 4.Dec.02) | |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some questions --Fait... (Lakhbir 7 Singh - 4.Dec.02) | |
| . . Re: Some questions...... (Lakhbir 7 Singh - 28.Nov.02) | |
| . . . . Re: Some questions...... (Jaspreet S Jodhka - 28.Nov.02) |
