# Talk:Formal fuzzy logic

## The intro is way to difficult

The intro should be simple, so that the general audience can at least get a vague idea of what it's all about.

The current one is way to heavy.

Ragnar Schroder 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

- There is a separate article entitled, I believe, Fuzzy logic that is meant to provide an overview. Even so, as this article evolves, I hope that it is fleshed out with a bit more exposition. Right now, it mostly summarizes basic definitions without really saying much about how they fit together and why fuzzy logic is being developed along these lines. To my mind, it also needs to say a bit more about "big issues" like the arbitrariness of the t-norm, and the extent to which basic results for classical logic (completeness, compactness, decidabiity results, etc.) extend to fuzzy logic. What (if anything) can be said about categoricity? Greg Woodhouse 11:04, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

## Why two articles?

There is no such thing as informal fuzzy logic, right? (Maybe that's what politicians practice.) So I don't understand why there are two articles. The idea of having two articles in the main namespace, one "introductory" and the other "advanced," and the two differing only based on whether one is called "formal" or not, is not actually licensed by our policies. We do have a few different subpage types that might be usable: tutorial and student. See CZ:Subpages (but don't expect any explanation of these types...). I'll explain more if you're interested. --Larry Sanger 09:44, 16 September 2007 (CDT)