Hi Jon, list This formula for normal subgroup, "gNg~" gets redone through involution-in "~~gNg~.....such that; ( ) trivial ( (N) ) group homomorphism I need to get out my list of Gentzen rules and see how far I can develop "conjugacy classes" with Alpha notation. Jim W
> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:45:44 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's 1880 “Algebra Of Logic” Chapter 3 • > Selection 7 > > Thread: > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15762 > JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15768 > JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15769 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15771 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15772 > JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15773 > JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15787 > JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15788 > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15789 > JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15790 > > On 3/7/2015 12:31 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote: > > > I am somewhat curious about how setting k=3 or k=4 > > might effect the so-called "reduction thesis." > > I don't believe the number of converses has any bearing on reducibility. > Whether relations of a given adicity are reducible under composition or > projections or not is either an immediate consequence of the definition > of relational composition or dependent on the existence of a universal > construction for uniquely determining a relation from a collection of > relations of lower adicity. Just off hand, I don't see the number of > converses entering into that. > > > Btw, I am beginning to think that Peirce has no time > > or need for an individual variable for non-relatives. > > It' s like ... "why bother". They aren't true variables > > anyway. With that in mind, maybe drop quantifiers too. > > I think it's fairly standard that monadic predicate calculus > and propositional calculus amount to the same thing. There > are a couple of articles by Quine that nail that down quite > nicely and develop further extensions of the underlying idea. > > Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives sets out a radical approach to > the role of indices and quantifiers in logic, a perspective whose > potential has yet to be fully explored even today. I discuss this > at some length in my commentary on that paper: > > http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives > > Regards, > > Jon > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- 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 .
