This title is printed to order. This book may have been self-published. If so, we cannot guarantee the quality of the content. In the main most books will have gone through the editing process however some may not. We therefore suggest that you be aware of this before ordering this book. If in doubt check either the author or publisher’s details as we are unable to accept any returns unless they are faulty. Please contact us if you have any questions.
From a linguistic perspective, it is quanti?cation which makes all the di?- ence between having no dollars and having a lot of dollars . And it is the meaning of the quanti?er most which eventually decides if Most Ame- cans voted Kerry or Most Americans voted Bush (as it stands). Natural language(NL)quanti?erslike all , almostall , many etc. serveanimp- tant purpose because they permit us to speak about properties of collections, as opposed to describing speci?c individuals only; in technical terms, qu- ti?ers are a ‘second-order’ construct. Thus the quantifying statement Most Americans voted Bush asserts that the set of voters of George W. Bush c- prisesthemajorityofAmericans,while Bushsneezes onlytellsussomething about a speci?c individual. By describing collections rather than individuals, quanti?ers extend the expressive power of natural languages far beyond that of propositional logic and make them a universal communication medium. Hence language heavily depends on quantifying constructions. These often involve fuzzy concepts like tall , and they frequently refer to fuzzy quantities in agreement like about ten , almost all , many etc. In order to exploit this expressive power and make fuzzy quanti?cation available to technical applications, a number of proposals have been made how to model fuzzy quanti?ers in the framework of fuzzy set theory. These approaches usually reduce fuzzy quanti?cation to a comparison of scalar or fuzzy cardinalities [197, 132].
