Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. Juli 2015 um 23:13 Uhr
Von: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de>
An: jawb...@att.net
Cc: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1
Von: "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de>
An: jawb...@att.net
Cc: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1
Dear Jon, List,
Thank you! What I was having in mind by the term "sign relation", was the individual or elementary sign relation. All this is very interesting, and I wish I was a youth again, and still could decide what to study: Maybe mathematics? But I am not dead yet, and may be able of catching up a bit, but it will take time. Surely, in a couple of rather weeks than days, I will bother you with another question. I hope you All have had a good Independence Day! As a non-American I am envious, eg. of the right to pursue happiness. Not, that in other nations people are being denied this right, but as a part of a constitution it is well estimated as a sign, and we know, that signs do something. I am thinking about the question: Is a triadic relation irreducible, if the three sets are classes? I think, that "representamens", "objects", and "dyadic relations between them" are classes. But I am still pondering about the interpretant, whether "interpretants" is a class, because: An interpretant is likely to be a representamen again. And: Is an interpretant an element of a relation? I think, it is not. It can change a relation (habit), but not necessarily does: In contradiction to Sheldrake I think, that natural laws are not changed by physical effects (I think that in inanimate realm "interpretant" is "effect"). Well, all this is just an anticipation. I dont have a question now, but later. Until then, all the best,
Helmut
Supplement: Sorry, the semiotic part of the above post was nonsense. I always lose a track again I have already found. The question that possibly may arise later, is, whether the Peircean "irreducibility" is the same as projective irreducibility.
"Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16523
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16550
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16551
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16572
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16573
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16595
Re: Relation Reduction : Examples of Projectively Reducible Relations
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Relation_reduction#Examples_of_projectively_reducible_relations
Helmut, List,
I constructed the "Ann and Bob" example back when I was enrolled in
a Systems Engineering program and had to explain how sign relations
would naturally come up in building intelligent systems possessed of
a capacity for inquiry. My adviser asked me for a simple, concrete,
but not wholly trivial example of a sign relation and after cudgeling
my wits for a while this is what fell out. Up till then I had never
much considered finite examples before since the cases that arise in
logic always have formal languages with infinite numbers of elements
in their syntactic domains if not also in their object domains.
Now, the first thing that we need to get clear about is that
there are two sign relations being described in this example:
L_A is the sign relation that captures how Ann interprets the signs in
S = I = {"Ann", "Bob", "I", "you") to denote objects in O = {Ann, Bob}.
L_B is the sign relation that captures how Bob interprets the signs in
S = I = {"Ann", "Bob", "I", "you") to denote objects in O = {Ann, Bob}.
Each of the sign relations, L_A and L_B, contains 8 triples of the form
(o, s, i) where o is an object in the object domain O, s is a sign in the
sign domain S, and i is an interpretant sign in the interpretant domain I.
These triples would be called "elementary" or "individual" sign relations,
as distinguished from the "general" sign relations that generally contain
many sign relational triples.
It's a little harder to carry out this discussion in plain text,
without the proper formatting required to distinguish different
uses of various letters, especially "I" and "i", but if this much
is clear we can move on to discuss the two types of reducibility
and irreducibility that arise in semiotics.
But I will have to break for dinner first ...
Jon
On 7/1/2015 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> I am referring to the second link of yours: "Relation reduction", the second
> example with A (Ann), B (Bob) u (you), i (I), resp. the representations of them,
> representation indicated by quotation marks, eg. "A" instead of A. My question
> is: Isnt it about a set of possible relations, instead of about one relation? To
> say, that the set of possible triadic relations is reducible to three sets of
> possible dyadic relations, that does not have to mean, that one triadic relation
> is reducible to three special dyadic relations, does it?
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> *Von:* "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
> Helmut, List,
>
> The facts about relational reducibility are relatively easy
> to understand and I included links to relevant discussions
> in my initial posting on relation theory:
>
> • Survey of Relation Theory
> ( http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/16/survey-of-relation-theory-%E2%80%A2-1/ )
>
> The following article discusses relational reducibility and
> irreducibility in general terms and gives concrete examples
> of reducible and irreducible triadic relations of the sort
> we find in mathematics and semiotics, illustrating the two
> types of reducibility that usually come up in discussions
> of the sort that most concern us here:
>
> • Relation Reduction
> ( http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Relation_reduction )
>
> These examples were introduced in the other articles on
> triadic relations and sign relations and I believe that
> one could learn a lot from their careful consideration:
>
> • Triadic Relations
> ( http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Triadic_relation )
>
> • Sign Relations
> ( http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Sign_relation )
>
> 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 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 .
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16523
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16550
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16551
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16572
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16573
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16595
Re: Relation Reduction : Examples of Projectively Reducible Relations
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Relation_reduction#Examples_of_projectively_reducible_relations
Helmut, List,
I constructed the "Ann and Bob" example back when I was enrolled in
a Systems Engineering program and had to explain how sign relations
would naturally come up in building intelligent systems possessed of
a capacity for inquiry. My adviser asked me for a simple, concrete,
but not wholly trivial example of a sign relation and after cudgeling
my wits for a while this is what fell out. Up till then I had never
much considered finite examples before since the cases that arise in
logic always have formal languages with infinite numbers of elements
in their syntactic domains if not also in their object domains.
Now, the first thing that we need to get clear about is that
there are two sign relations being described in this example:
L_A is the sign relation that captures how Ann interprets the signs in
S = I = {"Ann", "Bob", "I", "you") to denote objects in O = {Ann, Bob}.
L_B is the sign relation that captures how Bob interprets the signs in
S = I = {"Ann", "Bob", "I", "you") to denote objects in O = {Ann, Bob}.
Each of the sign relations, L_A and L_B, contains 8 triples of the form
(o, s, i) where o is an object in the object domain O, s is a sign in the
sign domain S, and i is an interpretant sign in the interpretant domain I.
These triples would be called "elementary" or "individual" sign relations,
as distinguished from the "general" sign relations that generally contain
many sign relational triples.
It's a little harder to carry out this discussion in plain text,
without the proper formatting required to distinguish different
uses of various letters, especially "I" and "i", but if this much
is clear we can move on to discuss the two types of reducibility
and irreducibility that arise in semiotics.
But I will have to break for dinner first ...
Jon
On 7/1/2015 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> I am referring to the second link of yours: "Relation reduction", the second
> example with A (Ann), B (Bob) u (you), i (I), resp. the representations of them,
> representation indicated by quotation marks, eg. "A" instead of A. My question
> is: Isnt it about a set of possible relations, instead of about one relation? To
> say, that the set of possible triadic relations is reducible to three sets of
> possible dyadic relations, that does not have to mean, that one triadic relation
> is reducible to three special dyadic relations, does it?
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> *Von:* "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net>
> Helmut, List,
>
> The facts about relational reducibility are relatively easy
> to understand and I included links to relevant discussions
> in my initial posting on relation theory:
>
> • Survey of Relation Theory
> ( http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/16/survey-of-relation-theory-%E2%80%A2-1/ )
>
> The following article discusses relational reducibility and
> irreducibility in general terms and gives concrete examples
> of reducible and irreducible triadic relations of the sort
> we find in mathematics and semiotics, illustrating the two
> types of reducibility that usually come up in discussions
> of the sort that most concern us here:
>
> • Relation Reduction
> ( http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Relation_reduction )
>
> These examples were introduced in the other articles on
> triadic relations and sign relations and I believe that
> one could learn a lot from their careful consideration:
>
> • Triadic Relations
> ( http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Triadic_relation )
>
> • Sign Relations
> ( http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Sign_relation )
>
> 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 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 .
