Fuzzy Logic: The Logic of Fuzzy Sets

Introduction
The concept of a Fuzzy Logic is one that it is very easy for
the ill-informed to dismiss as trivial and/or insignificant. It
refers not to a fuzziness of logic but instead to a logic of
fuzziness, or more specifically to the logic of fuzzy sets.
Those that examined Lotfi A. Zadeh's concept more
closely found it to be useful for dealing with real world
phenomena. From a strictly mathematical point of view
the concept of a Fuzzy Set is a brilliant generalization of
the classical notion of a Set. Now the concept of a Fuzzy
Set is well established as an important and practical
construct for modeling. Moreover, Zadeh's formulation
makes one realize how artificial is the classical black-white
formulation of Aristotelian logic (Is A or Is Not-A). In a
world of shades of gray a black-white dichotomy involves
an unnecessary arbitrariness, an artificiality imposed
upon that world.
The purpose of the material here is to present the
mathematical structure of the concept of Fuzzy Sets. This
generalization is achieved by way of the concept of the
characteristic function for a set.

Classical Set Theory Formulated

in Terms of Characteristic Functions
One way of defining a set A is in terms of its characteristic
function μA(x). A point x belongs to set A if and only if
μA(x)=1. A characteristic function is a function from some
universal set U to the binary set {0,1}.
The set operations of union, intersection and
complementation are defined in terms of characteristic
functions as follows.

 Union:

μA∪B(x) = max(μA(x),μB(x))

 Intersection:

μA∩B(x) = min(μA(x),μB(x))

 Complement:

μnot A(x) = 1-μA(x))

The other set theory constructs that are essential are:

 Set Inclusion:

A ⊂ B if and only if ∀x (for all x)

μA(x)=1 implies μB(x)=1

 Set Equality:

A = B if and only if ∀x (for all x)

μA(x)=μB(x).

A Fuzzy Set as a Generalization of a Regular

(Crisp) Set
As indicated above a characteristic function is a mapping
from the universal set U to the set {0,1}. A fuzzy set is
defined in terms of a membership function which is a
mapping from the universal set U to the interval [0,1]. A
characteristic function is a special case of a membership
function and a regular set (a.k.a a crisp set) is a special
case of a fuzzy set. Thus the concept of a fuzzy set is a
natural generalization of the concept of standard set
theory.
It remains to be proven whether the standard operations
of standard set theory; i.e., union, intersection and
complementation, have proper analogues in fuzzy set
theory.

Fuzzy Set Theory in Terms of Membership

Functions
A membership function is a function from a universal set
U to the interval [0,1]. A fuzzy set A is defined by its
membership function φA over U.
The operation of union, intersection and complementation
are defined exactly the same as they are for standard sets
in terms of the characteristic function; i.e.;

 Union:

φA∪B(x) = max(φA(x),φB(x))

 Intersection:
 φA∩B(x) = min(φA(x),φB(x))

 Complement:

φnot A(x) = 1-φA(x))

Set inclusion and set equality have a natural definition for

fuzzy sets; i.e.,

 Set Inclusion:

A ⊂ B if and only if ∀x (for all x)

φA(x)≤φB(x)

 Set Equality:
 A = B if and only if ∀x (for all x)
φA(x)=φB(x).

Of course any definitions can be posited; the question is

whether the corresponding theorems that hold in standard
set theory hold in fuzzy set theory. With the above
definitions most standard set theory theorems carry over
into fuzzy set theory.

Basic Properties of Sets and Set Operations

Some of the more important elementary theorems of
standard set theory are:

 Associativity of Union:

A ∪ (B ∪ C) = (A ∪ B) ∪ C

 Commutativity of Union:
 A∪B=B∪A

 Associativity of Intersection:

A ∩ (B ∩ C) = (A ∩ B) ∩ C

 Commutativity of Intersection:

A∩B=B∩A

 Distributivity of Union with respect to

Intersection:

A ∩ (B ∪ C) = (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ C)
  Distributivity of Intersection with respect to
Union:

A ∪ (B ∩ C) = (A ∪ B) ∩ (A ∪ C)

 Existence of a null set Φ such that for any set A

A ∪ Φ = A and A ∩ Φ = Φ

 Reflexity of Complementation:

(Ac)c = A

 De Morgan's Laws:
 (A ∪ B)c = Ac ∩ Bc
(A ∩ B)c = Ac ∪ Bc

In the analysis below let φA, φB and φC be the membership

functions for the fuzzy sets A, B, and C respectively.
Furthermore, for any element of the universal set p,

x = φA(p),
y = φB(p)
and z = φC(p).

The associativity and commutativity of fuzzy set union and

intersection follow from the definition and the
associativity and commutativity of the maximum and
minimum functions; i.e.,

max(x,max(y,z)) = max(max(x,y),z)
min(x,min(y,z)) = min(min(x,y),z)

The distributivity properties also follow from properties of

the maximum and minimum functions but the proof is a
bit longer.
The right-hand side of the first distributivity relation is (A
∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ C) which for fuzzy sets involves the
evaluation of w = max(min(x,y),min(x,z)). If x is less either
y or z then w = x. If x is between y<z then also w=x. If x is
greater than either y or z then w = max(y,z). Thus w =
min(x,max(y,z). This expression is equivalent to A ∩ (B ∪
C).
The right-hand side of the second distributivity relation is
(A ∪ B) ∩ (A ∪ C) which requires the evaluation of w =
min(max(x,y),max(x,z)). As in the case of the previous
distributivity relation the various cases can be evaluated.
If x is greater than either y or z then w=x. If x is between y
and z for y<z then w = min(x,z) = x. If x is less than either
y or z then w = min(y,z). Thus w = max(x,min(y,z)) or in
set terms A ∪ (B ∩ C).
The reflexity of complementation is easily established.

1 - (1 - x) = x

The null set for fuzz sets is the fuzzy set Φ for which the
membership function is zero for all elements.

Illustration of Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Set

Operations
Below are examples of two fuzzy sets. They are
constructed the basis of the distance of a point from a
center. If the distance is less than a certain minimum the
point is definitely in the set; i.e., the set membership
function equals 1.0. If the distance is greater than a certain
maximum the point is definitely not in the set; i.e., the set
membership function equals 0.0. If the distance is between
the minimum and maximum the set membership function
is a linear function of the distance above the minimum, as
shown below.

In the displays below the brightness of the color represents

the value of the set membership function. Thus black
represents the points not in the set.

The union of these two sets is shown below with the color
of the points in the union set being violet.

The intersection of the two sets is:

Now that the intersection of two fuzzy sets has been

displayed it is possible to present a visually more
interesting display of the union of two sets. In this display
the points which are in both sets are again displayed in
violet.

The complement of the first set above (the one in red) is

given below.

And the intersection of the first set and its complement is

not empty, as is shown below.
Another difference between fuzzy set theory and regular
set theory concerns the union of a set with its complement.
In regular set theory the union of a set with its
complement gives the universal set. This is not the case for
a fuzzy set, as is shown below:

If the union of the first fuzzy set with its complement were
the universal set then the rectangle above would be
uniformly bright red.

The Life of Lotfi A. Zadeh

Ironically, Lotfi Zadeh is a good example of fuzzy set
membership. The question of Zadeh's ethnicity is difficult
to answer sharply. His father was Turkish-Iranian
(Azerbaijani) and his mother was Russian. His father was
a journalist working in Baku, Azerbaijan in the Soviet
Union. He served as a correspondent for Iranian
newspapers while dealing export-import trade. His mother
was a pediatrician. Lotfi was born in Baku in 1921 and
lived there until his family moved to Tehran in 1931.
Even Lotfi's name is now subject to a degree of
uncertainty. The correct spelling is LOTFI, but there are
numerous instances of the F and T being reversed to
LOFTI, even in books about fuzzy logic. A google search
for "lotfi zadeh" brings up 144,000 cases but a search for
"lofti zadeh" brings up 17,000. However there were only
318 which had both spellings.
Lotfi's education commenced with his early years in Soviet
Union. There he witnessed in the schools the messianic
zeal of the true believers in communism. By 1931 anyone
with any sense who could get out got out of the Soviet
Union. When his parents moved the family to Tehran they
put him in an American Presbyterian missionary school.
He thus was subject to Russian, American and Iranian
cultural influences with their accompanying religious
zeals. He does not easily fit into any classification system.
One thing however that can be said of Lotfi Zadeh; he has
a brilliant, versatile mind.
He completed his degree in electrical engineering in 1942.
Political conditions were in turmoil in the world in general
and in Iran in particular. In 1943 Lotfi decided to
emigrate to America. Against the odds he was able to
achieve this goal inspite of wartime conditions. In America
he decided to enroll in the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) for a master's degree in electrical
engineering. This he completed in 1946. He immediate
went into a doctoral program at Columbia University in
New York, completing it in 1949. He became an assistant
professor at Columbia upon his graduation. By 1957 he
was a full professor at Columbia. In 1958 he received an
offer from the University of California at Berkeley to join
its department of electrical engineering. He accepted the
offer and moved to Berkeley in 1958. By 1963 he was
chairman of his department.
It was in 1964 that he formulated his generalization of the
concept of a set. He worked out his ideas while visiting
New York where his parents lived. There was not anything
fuzzy about its formulation; it was precise, rigorous
mathematics. The namefuzzy logic was an interesting and
appropriate way to describe his concept but probably was
detrimental to its acceptance. Some name such
as continuum logic would have avoided the connotations of
imprecision, but the name is part of the culture now and
nothing can be done about it.

Ambiguous Boundaries Between Disjoint Sets

It is appropriate to point out here that ill-defined
boundaries between disjoint sets does not require any
generalization of the classical notion of a set. Consider sets
of points in a topological space. A point on the boundary
between two sets is defined as a point such that any
neighborhood of that point contains elements of both sets.
Most examples of such spatial sets have crip boundaries.
For example, for sets in a two dimensional space the
boundary between a set and its complement set is a one
dimensional curve. But this is just a special case. It is easy
to define two dimensional sets such that the boundary is a
two dimensional region rather than a one dimensional
curve. A construction of this nature is depicted below. At
each stage the middle third of the extensions are included
in the other set. The process of course has to proceed ad
infinitum. The first four stages are shown below along with
what the ultimate stage would look like.
Stage One

Stage Two

Stage Three
 Stage Four

......................................................................
Ad Infinitum

......................................................................
The Ultimate Result of the Construction

For the fully constructed set any point in the middle

vertical third of the box is a boundary point of the red and
cyan sets. Thus the boundary between the two sets is not a
line but instead a rectangle.
Having established that standard sets can have fuzzy
boundary sets it is now possible to interpret set
membership as average membership over a minimal
window of a particular size. In other words, observation is
always relative to a particular scale or minimum window
size and what is observed is the average characteristics
within that minimum window, which in remote sensing is
called the pixel.
To illustrate this point consider one of the preliminary
stages, say the fourth, in the above construction of a set
with a fuzzy boundary. Consider square windows centered
upon some point that is not in the red set. For relative
large windows the set membership might be 75 percent
red. As the window size decreases there is a point reached
in which the window lies entirely within the zone that will
be the boundary of the red set. For that window size and
below for a range the set membership of the window is 50
percent red. When the window size shrinks to the point
most of the window is in the cyan finger containing the
selected point the set membership drops to 0 percent red.

In the above graph the macro threshold refers to the

observation window size such that the window lies entirely
within the "boundary zone". The micro threshold refers
to the window size which lies entirely within the subset of
the "boundary zone" containing the selected point. The
higher the stage in the construction of the set with a fuzzy
boundary the closer the micro threshold is to zero. Thus
for the fully constructed fuzzy boundary set the limit of
the set membership as the window size goes to zero is 50
percent no matter whether or not the point upon which
the windows are centered is in or not in the red set. As
indicated, although observation does depend upon the
scale or window size there is an extended range over which
observation is independent of window size.
Another way of stating the above interpretation is that
observation never deals with the underlying set but
instead deals with some partition of the set into subsets;
i.e., pixels. For observation set membership is not the
issue; instead the issue is allocation of subsets to sets.
The above material is one interpretation of the matter of
fuzzy boundary sets which emphasizes the scale-dependent
nature of observation. This existence of an alternative to
fuzzy set theory does not preclude its development of a
rigorous generalization of classical standard set theory.