1 minute read
Quantum Logic vs Many-Valued Logics
Scilogs, V: joining the dots
If "blue" color is considered the opposite of "red" color, then we may say: F(red) = 0.2, and I(red) = 0.1. But let's change a little this example: One has 7 red balls, 2 yellow balls, and 1 black ball. Now, "yellow" is not the opposite of "red", therefore one has:
Advertisement
T(red) = 0.7, I1(red) = 0.2, I1(red) = 0.1, and F(red) = 0.0. This example does not work in IFL, since there is no opposite of "red", and in addition in IFL you cannot refine (split) the Indeterminacy (I) as we do in NL. When the sum of single-valued neutrosophic components
T+I+F =1, the Neutrosophic Logic (NL) representation is the same as in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logic (IFL), yet the aggregation operators are still different, since in
NL you apply AND, OR etc. on all three neutrosophic components T, I, F, while in IFL you apply AND, OR etc. on T, F only (so "I" is ignored, which is not correct).
Quantum Logic vs Many-Valued Logics
To George Weissmann There are no quantum logic operators (negation, union, intersection, implication), as we have in fuzzy, intuitionistic fuzzy, and neutrosophic logics; mostly abstract theorems in abstract spaces in quantum logic... Not clear explanations...
