Talk:Fuzzy mathematics

untitled[edit]

The paper still does not finished Batyr 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article issues[edit]

I added a cleanup and wikify tag to the article. Currently, it doesn't onform to the manual of style of Wikipedia, and it can use some sectioning, and copyedit aswell. This article is getting in some nice shape, and is a neat addition to wikipedia. A few secondary sources wouldn't hurt either, but are always hard to come by, in math articles. Martijn Hoekstra 11:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~might~~ did change the reference formatting. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unintelligible[edit]

Jeez, can someone rewrite the intro so it's more accessible to non-math people? I have a BSc in physics and am currently a science grad student, and it's still totally incomprehensible to me. The fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic intros are much more comprehensible to a non-expert, can we get something like that (that doesn't invoke so much jargon)? 70.189.38.161 (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

word to the wise: there is nothing behind the jargon smoke screen. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D1B7:91BB:C98D:C0FC (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 198.53.55.2 (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most of the higher mathematics articles on Wikipedia have the same problem. Anyone who understands the article didn't need to read it in the first place. Anyone who does need to read it will never understand it. 174.28.35.236 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applications[edit]

The article lacks such section. Appls do exixt but i am unwikipacitated unfortunately now. - Altenmann >talk 04:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]