This is a very common tool of sophists. They will criticize an aspect of science (there is an enormous campaign to do away with pesky scientific facts in the US of A) by saying "(That scientific concept) doesn't explain x, y z, etc so therefore (insert magical belief here) must be the correct explanation." It is an extreme form of pedantry, and people fall for it all the time.
Thus Mark tried to assert to me that complex numbers are not useful because capacitors have a finite tolerance; therefore, they are (this is the unspoken assumption) completely random, or wrong. Sophists always try to call scientific facts "random" or "arbitrary" and though Mark did not say this, he used the exact same rhetorical trick that all the sophists use.
"Tried to assert" doesn't not equal quote. However your logic is quite transparent.
Your pedantry is not a good look. What are you trying to accomplish?
Your pedantry is not a good look. What are you trying to accomplish?
Okay, where did I try to assert complex numbers are not useful, do you have a quote for that? I don't think you can find anything close to that, because I never asserted any such thing.
Apparently you inferred something out of your imagination.
Apparently you inferred something out of your imagination.
Mark said "Are you saying that capacitors don't have things like tolerances and voltage coefficients? You do a calculation get an exact number, but a physical capacitor does not have perfectly LTI capacitance. So your calculation is approximate in relation to the physical reality."
Eddie addressed this: "You could say the same about resistors. Your objection in no way, shape, or form casts shade on complex numbers and their usefulness. It's true but a total non-sequitur"
Who do you think you're talking to? I know all about capacitor nonlinearities, stray inductance and capacitance, etc. That doesn't change a thing about complex numbers.
I'm familiar with rhetorical sophistry. Whether intentional or not, you were straying down that path. Consider your audience; we're not typical American idiots here.
Eddie addressed this: "You could say the same about resistors. Your objection in no way, shape, or form casts shade on complex numbers and their usefulness. It's true but a total non-sequitur"
Who do you think you're talking to? I know all about capacitor nonlinearities, stray inductance and capacitance, etc. That doesn't change a thing about complex numbers.
I'm familiar with rhetorical sophistry. Whether intentional or not, you were straying down that path. Consider your audience; we're not typical American idiots here.
I didn't object to anything. I said calculations using idealized models are approximations of reality. That is not an objection.
You are very confused. I will leave it at that.
You are very confused. I will leave it at that.
What was the point of you pointing out the glaringly obvious facts to an audience of engineers in a confrontational tone? Everybody here already knows your points.
Consider your audience. You came across as combative and pedantic.
Consider your audience. You came across as combative and pedantic.
I'm not sure first is even a valid dichotomy. Could a being that evolved in a universe displaying regular rules survive any other way than by closely mapping to those regular rules? How would a cognition outside those rules arise? Concepts like cause may be baked into us at a 'firmware' level, rendering us incapable of conceptualizing it an any other way than fundamental to the universe, above and beyond all local contingencies. Math as the process of inventing a language for that mapping? The discover/invent debate has been ongoing for millennia.
If my read of anthropology is correct, one of the core roots of math is tax collection. Another universal.
If you have a science test, and the problem says you have 12 apples, then 7 apples are taken away, how many apples do you have left?
If you answer, "it could maybe be around 4 - 5 because what if one of them is so small its almost not really an an apple," then you don't pass the test. You know you're not supposed to think that way about the problem. It demands an exact answer.
And the nature of Kosko's mind was that he did think about those things.
Sigh. You are the one who selected and presented those quotes, and as of now that's all any of us have to go on. I might read his book - but I have a huge plie to read first (including "noise" that just arrived). So all I can go on is your selection of quotes. So stop trying to suggest I am looking for an excuse to do anything.
The quotes were from Chapter 1, which is typically the motivational chapter. Coming from a guy that writes textbooks its not too surprising.
That part of the book best explained the motivation for fuzzy thinking, the rest of book is more about doing it.
That part of the book best explained the motivation for fuzzy thinking, the rest of book is more about doing it.
I could have contrived a different example. Say, lifting a weight with a pully some distance. Question is how much work was done? Maybe Kosko would think, well doesn't the pully axle have friction? Given the limited information available, doesn't that leave some uncertainty or fuzziness as to the amount of work? Wrong answer! Do the math exactly as given.
In response to that admonition, Kosko might think, "but that's not real, its just pretending the world is the math."
One could contrive all sorts of examples to illustrate the way his mind works.
Last edited:
Maybe you should apply to teach physics at your local university. That way the future scientists and engineers will "get it right" the first time; because, no engineer ever bothers to take friction into account, right?
Set em straight Einstein.
Set em straight Einstein.
Ironically, complex numbers are instrumental to Schrödinger’s equation, which deals with an aspect of the physical world where fuzzy logic may have descriptive or explanatory power.
Outside of that, fuzzy logic is a mathematical, modeling tool.
In any case, this thread has taken so many strange detours, I lost tract of how fuzzy logic or anything else validates or invalidates objectivism, subjectivism, or basic science.
Outside of that, fuzzy logic is a mathematical, modeling tool.
In any case, this thread has taken so many strange detours, I lost tract of how fuzzy logic or anything else validates or invalidates objectivism, subjectivism, or basic science.
Me too.
I will continue to use complex numbers as a design tool, and I will continue to obtain precise and useful (but not exact) results.
Next up: try to convince me that gravity makes things fall up, because fuzzy logic.
I will continue to use complex numbers as a design tool, and I will continue to obtain precise and useful (but not exact) results.
Next up: try to convince me that gravity makes things fall up, because fuzzy logic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.