DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Fuzzy concept

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Wow

[edit]

This article is nearly impossible to read and it should be maybe a few paragraphs long, max. Temerarius (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yep it still is impossible to read Ap51492 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But is that good or bad? Given that most of the content is low quality that question should be asked. Consumption of low quality food or information can not be advised. I have tried to do some clean up but Afd may be a better option. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Language

[edit]

I'm way too tired to do anything but I do want to note that the ordinary language section would benefit greatly from a semiotic perspective. Urmarkt (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I do not accept this criticism. In writing this article, I base myself on a lifetime of research experience, like, 35 years, including working as a research statistician in survey design. What the hell is a "semiotic perspective"? I studied with a leading Australian semiologist specializing in forms design. Constructive suggestions and improvements are welcome, but not "fuzzy" criticisms which mean nothing. Admittedly there is little theoretical literature on the logical and semantic properties of fuzzy concepts, but the term is widely used in scientific discourse. It therefore merits a wiki entry. User:Jurriaan 20:33 8 may 2010 (UTC)

The irony in the notion of choice for de Groot's analysis (#Psychology)

[edit]

     Hello, I am debating whether or not to draw readers' attention to the irony in the notion that Dutch theologian Kees de Groot has analyzed and defined as a fuzzy concept: 'that psychotherapy is like an "implicit religion" ... (it all depends on what one means by "psychotherapy" and "religion")' (#Psychology, ¶2 [not counting the bulleted list]). More precisely, I mean to say that the notion, a fuzzy concept itself, compares the vast collections of countless other fuzzy concepts that psychology and religion contain, on which psychotherapy and theology are respectively based. The next section down, #Applications, affirms the idea that religion generally contains systems of fuzzy concepts whose possible meanings are highly personalized and postulated through hermeneutics; perhaps there could even be an additional note along the lines of: "(See [[Fuzzy concept#Applications|Applications]] below)." However, I am not sure if it is really necessary or fitting for an encyclopedia to bring readers' attention to this bit of information. Therefore, I am requesting editors' input pertinent to this issue.

Thank you,
BlueCaper (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

,

It is not really the purpose of the article to ironize the use of the concept, although an ironical use of the concept could be noted neutrally if there is evidence of such. The article should be "neutral", and just mention the various viewpoints and uses there are. However, possibly the bit about Kees de Groot could be shifted to the paragraph about religious applications of fuzzy concepts.

Jurriaan (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fuzzy concept. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completing the article

[edit]

I have done more work on the article to improve and reference it, with better layout. I had to do it initially under my own IP address 85.148.154.58 but have now be able to create a new wiki account. User: Jurriaan2 —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've just linked from sustainability to here and wonder if we can also link in the other direction? My suggestion is based on this paper. EMsmile (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a link to "sustainability" under the subheading of "generalities" under "everyday occurrence". The papers referred to, do discuss sustainability as a fuzzy concept. That is not to say of course that a particular application of the concept of sustainability, if somewhat fuzzy, cannot be made more precise by means of some or other method. If this location does not meet your intention, perhaps this item can be shifted somewhere else in the article. DJJB621 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR rummage sale

[edit]

I mentioned on the WP:OR noticeboard that this page can be kindly described as a rummage sale of WP:OR nonsense. But it is in fact just an alphabet soup of meaningless items. I do not want to just wipe it out by myself, and certainly do not see how it can be easily fixed. Should it just be AFDed to avoid embarrassment for Wikipedia? If someone places the AFD flag I will support it. Or perhaps redirect to Fuzzy logic or Fuzzy set ? This material is hopelessly contradictory. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent with Yesterday, all my dreams... because I think there is room for improvement in this lengthy and wide-ranging article. However, I think the article should not be deleted, but improved, and that is also the opinion of those whom I consulted. A lot of the content is very good, readers found it useful and it is often appropriately referenced. There exists a valid case for a separate article on this topic. The article has had nearly 300,000 visits, almost none of the readers had any significant criticism of the article. The article text has already been used in academic publications and in the text of an article by a professor in India. The editor Yesterday, all my dreams... doesn’t happen to like the article, and he unilaterally rips out slabs of text without discussion, because he thinks paragraphs are wrong or unreferenced. But he does not support his accusations and allegations with any substantial evidence, justifications or explanations whatever, he just asserts things. He believes the article is garbage and “contradictory”, which is insulting to the writers who put in a lot of effort, but maybe it is just that he does not understand the topic, is not an expert and is unfamiliar with the relevant literature. This is not the way to handle things here, and in fact it violates Wikipedia protocol. I intend to write an assessment of the state of the article in the near future, and make a plan to improve it, so that it conforms better to Wikipedia requirements. I will post that here for discussion. DJJB621 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps also add, that the pieces of text which Yesterday, all my dreams... removed for the article are all correct, and can be individually referenced without any problem from sources already referenced elsewhere in the article. The real problem is, that Yesterday, all my dreams... lacks any constructive attitude, and engages in jeering, sneering, swearing and labelling without providing any solid evidential support for his accusations and objections. The most likely reason why he provides no evidential support is because he doesn't know anything about the subjectmatter and the literature, and just assumes that if he thinks something is wrong, then it must be wrong, nevermind what anybody else says. If for example Yesterday, all my dreams... had read and understood the wiki article on the uncertainty principle, he would realize that there was nothing wrong in the fuzzy concept text on this matter. But he doesn't know anything about physics, apparently. I intend to reverse the deleted bits and reference them individually. DJJB621 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost thank you for all your sweet comments about my academic credentials... Just kidding. FYI, Zadeh did not share your opinion and had a pretty high opinion of my abilities, publications and knowledge. There was nothing fuzzy above that. If you have solid sources, just add them. Else please go for a walk and calm down. Merry Christmas. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many readers found this article a useful resource in grappling with issues that have to do with fuzzy ideas, issues about vagueness and gradations of truth. It explains things in a clear way, and provides references to a wide range of sources. It has a right to exist, but I think it can be improved so that it fits better with desirable wiki formats. I would recommend that you first read the article thoroughly, before making criticisms. I would also recommend that you desist from verbal abuse and derogatory innuendo’s if you intend to stay active as editor in Wikipedia (you have already been criticized before in Wikipedia, for arbitrary editing). Either you should provide hard evidence for your claims and offer solutions, or you should back off. From my perspective, the issue is essentially whether you want to collaborate constructively to improve this article, or whether you just want to vent disgusting abuse and engineer the shutdown of the article. You vent accusations in the form of swearwords without any explanations or proofs about “garbage”, “nonsense”, “alphabet soup”, "low quality", “hopelessly contradictory text” and “rummage sale” etc. After venting your insults, you are then telling me to take a hike, and cool off!? Huh? You instruct me to provide “solid sources”? Hah! What do you think I have been contributing to this article so far? If you want to be constructive, and if you offer a genuine apology for your previous behavior, then we may perhaps be able to work together to improve the article. Then you help Wikipedia “in good faith”, through thoughtful and respectful discussion and appropriate alterations. If, however, you just want slander other editors, and vandalize other people’s work, I am not going to cooperate with that at all (at my age, I really do not have the time anymore for silly academic tirades and status games which go nowhere). When I object to your abuse, you respond by telling in all modesty how you are a fantastic academic who supposedly had the personal blessing of the late Lotfi Zadeh (probably not true, given your infantile rants and abuse), as if that gives you the natural right to be abusive and talk down to people (I am very sure that Prof. Zadeh would not have endorsed your style at all!). Substantively, your thinking is out of place here, for five reasons which I will set out here, to make things abundantly clear: (1) We are not here in the role of academics trading polemics in a lecture hall, we are here as anonymous Wikipedians who seek to work together peacefully to create better and informative articles, no more and no less. (2) Although this article acknowledges the influence of Zadeh, it is not primarily about Zadeh, and this article is not primarily about Zadeh’s idea of fuzzy concepts or fuzzy sets. In this article, it is acknowledged that what we now often call “fuzzy ideas and concepts” was already recognized millennia ago. Quite a few scholars nowadays acknowledge the ancient roots of the modern discussions. Lotfi Zadeh obviously did not invent the idea of a “fuzzy concept”, or the idea of “gradations of truth”. Those ideas already existed in the thought of philosophers in antiquity, with different names. What Lotfi Zadeh invented, was a formalization of the concept of a “fuzzy set”, which plays an important role in fuzzy logic and proved very useful in programming a great variety of automated tasks. Zadeh’s contribution is specifically a product of the digital age of the networked computer. So, simply said, this article is not just about Lotfi Zadeh, it is much broader in scope. (3) This article acknowledges different definitions of (and approaches to) fuzzy concepts, and different uses of fuzzy concepts in all sorts of areas and disciplines – which suggests the necessity for a multidisciplinary approach. (4) This article illustrates the extent to which fuzzy concepts and fuzzy logic pervade our everyday lives, our technologies, our infrastructure and our intellectual activities. Of course, the article is going to seem “contradictory” or “inconsistent” in some respects, because not all scholars operate with the same definitions of what a fuzzy concept is, and they do not all take the same approach. But it will also appear “contradictory” to readers who simply don’t understand the subject-matter (with the possible fruitful effect, that they then have to think about it for themselves first to understand the logic). (5) This article has the merit that it tries to do justice to the complexity, depth and width of the topic, rather than merely presenting superficial definitions and a myopic view of the role of fuzzy concepts in science or in human life. This article was piloted in 2008, and many different aspects and ideas were added across 17 years. The article grew in size. Then it was restructured, revised and re-edited several times, because the original structure/storyline was not adequate anymore. It contains pretty much all the content needed for a great article, but the challenge now is to improve the structure, content, layout and narrative, and selectively remove bits which are not really needed or functional for the purpose of the article. I do not claim to have all the solutions ready yet right now. Nor can I devote endless time to revisions. Other editors can help with this task (which is not as simple as it looks and assumes a working knowledge of the subject). But we don’t get anywhere, if they simply rip out slabs of text without constructive discussion, and without knowing what they are doing. This sort of thing has already happened in thousands of Wikipedia articles, and it leaves “shipwrecks” which (1) nobody wants to edit anymore, (2) do not provide a good orientation about their topic anymore. Before you destroy other people’s work in Wikipedia, think carefully about what the consequences are, and make sure you contribute a genuine improvement. Otherwise, your edits will not be a help, but a toxic hindrance. You always have the option to decide that you don’t know enough about the subject, and that you can refocus on writing better articles elsewhere, about other subjects that you have more experience with. DJJB621 (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about programming techniques, but about fuzzy concepts, looked at from different points of view. So far, you have provided no evidence or argument yet that anything is wrong is this article, nor have you provided any constructive ideas about improving the article. You have only wiped out text. If all you can do is just to leave your poop on this page with some nasty trolling, before you are off to your next target, I don't think that Wikipedia is going to thank you for it. DJJB621 (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the deletions by Yesterday, all my dreams... because they are inappropriate and inserted references where appropriate. I can insert more references, because all the statements are true and bona fide, but I do not want to clog up the article with too many references either. If you wish to contest particular statements, this is fine, but if you do that please provide motive, evidence and argument to show what has gone wrong. DJJB621 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at Elon Musk's recent Grokipedia ( https://grokipedia.com/page/Fuzzy_concept ) to see the formats of Musk's AI-produced article on "fuzzy concept". It is very clear, that Musk's encyclopedia machines borrowed/imitated *a lot of content* from this Wikipedia article, but without explicit acknowledgement to Wikipedia. So the filthy insults by Yesterday, all my dreams... miss the mark. In some respects, the Grokipedia version is better or adds points, but in some respects it is worse, among other things because a machine cannot think and machine language lacks the full subtlety and nuance of human language and creativity. DJJB621 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]