Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Rough Sets

[Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:

Azamat,

 

Agreed, rough set theory is a different view of sets, not probabilistic, not fuzzy,

Rough sets differ formally from fuzzy sets in some important ways, but they are certainly kissin' cousins.  Both were designed to deal with vagueness and imperfect knowledge, and the idea of the boundary region of a rough set is meant to do the same sort of work that fuzzy membership was designed to do. Indeed, it is possible alternatively to define rough sets in terms of a rough membership function, which turns out to be a generalization of fuzzy membership.

not ambiguous, but bounded and multivalent.

Rough sets have boundary regions; I don't know what you mean by saying they are bounded. And I have no idea what you have in mind in calling them multivalent.

-chris

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)