Ben, list: On Nov 10, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote, quoting CSP:
> A true CONTINUUM (q. v.) is something whose possibilities of determination no > multitude of individuals can exhaust. A minor comment with respect to this definition of a continuum. The concept of "can exhaust" is a weak concept of continuity relative to the notion of a mark on a line or the welding of points together. A simple counterexample of this definition arises in chemical logic. The conjunction of chemical elements creates molecules containing all the parts of each element. Such conjunctions beget spatial objects. An element may serve as a branching point for the graph of the molecule, it may signify 1,2,3,4,... branches into 3D space. The additions of further conjuncts is not exhaustible; no multitude of individual atoms exhausts the individuals. Yet, the branched structure, as a consequence of valence, is a set of nodes and lines representing the parts of the atoms. It is not necessarily a circle but circles are not excluded. Does this concept of conjunction conform to CSP's definition of a continuum based on the concept of exhausting individuals? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
