At 10:58 PM 12/16/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Howard,
It's hard for someone trained as a graph theorist to make sense of
that question, since graphs, strictly speaking, are just dyadic (or
binary) relations.
HP: So if it makes any sense, you would say the answer to my question
is, No, by definition.
JA: If we are more loosely speaking about the sorts of diagrams that
Peirce called "graphs" and used to represent propositions about
arbitrary k-place relations, then we'll have to take some time to
say what those are exactly and what they represent and how exactly
to interpret them.
I might very hazily hazard a guess that are talking about a picture like this:
```````s``
``````/```
o---<R````
``````\```
```````i``
And maybe what you call a "dyadic subgraph" is some 2-part piece of that?
HP: That's too hazy. So I wonder: Is it possible to faithfully
represent Peirce's triadic concept of a sign by a diagram or picture
of any type? Frederik discusses
<http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/hoffmann/p-sighof.htm>Hoffmann
(p. 279) but his diagrams are not graphs and the meaning of the lines
joined at the center is totally occult.
Howard
Howard
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
