The article is correct and of the top mathematical quality. In this sense, I have no comments. Nevertheless, the editors of Scholarpedia would consider, if the formulation is acceptable for the readers of the assumed type and level regarding their previous mathematical skill.
To be correct, I believe that the possibility to read an explanation written by professor Zadeh personally is worth for higher concentration by the readers.
The article is written in the top mathematical quality and in this sense, it is evidently acceptable. Nevertheless, the editors of Scholarpedia would consider, if the theoretical level of the article corresponds with the presumed type of readers, regarding their mathematical skill and experience. But I believe that an explanation written personally by prof. Zadeh is worth for a bit higher concentration of the readers' perception.
Existing scientific theories are almost without exception based on classical, bivalent logic
I disagree with the sentence Existing scientific theories are almost without exception based on classical, bivalent logic. There are at least three domains of logic (or mathematic) where one consider logic with some kind of approximation, namely:
- intuitionistic logic,
- modal logic,
- algorithmic complexity theory.