Ben, lists, Yours are good questions and I'll try to take them up as, hopefully sometime next week, I summarize and reflect on Frederik's analysis of the "long quotation" in Chapter 8 when he argues, as I put it in an earlier post, that "Peirce "relativized" material implication to go beyond it in revising parts of his Beta and Gamma graphs."
Meanwhile, I hope Frederik, or Gary F, or Jim, or Jeffrey or anyone familiar with this issue will sound in on it as I've no time to myself this weekend Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > Gary, list, > > I am curious about this. It's a subject where I've tripped up before. It > apparently has to do with Peirce's removing the rule whereby 'there is > something blue or round' is equivalent to 'there is something blue or there > is something round'. That's also to remove the rule where by 'all is blue > and round' is equivalent to 'all is blue and all is round'. Those are among > the rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_passage_%28logic%29 now > known in logic as 'rules of passage' (so dubbed by Herbrand). To remove one > of them seems to be to remove all of them. My questions, for you or > Frederik or whomever, are: > (1) How is one to think of 'all is blue and round' as differing in meaning > from 'all is blue and all is round' ? Does one of them imply, without being > implied by, the other? > (2) Doesn't this change make the Beta graphs non-equivalent to first-order > logic? Or is this really a change for the purpose of Gamma graphs? I'm no > logician, so I may be confused here. > > Best, Ben > > On 1/14/2015 4:32 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Perhaps this is a good place to stop for now since at this point in the > chapter Frederik quotes the important long passage I mentioned in my first > post in this thread and analyzes it in terms of how Peirce "relativized" > material implication to go beyond it in revising parts of his Beta and > Gamma graphs. However, that is a somewhat technical discussion and I'm am > not sure that there is enough interest here in EGs to continue it. > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
