Peircers,
As I wrote before, I used the phrase "relations proper"
merely to emphasize that I was talking about relations
in the technical sense. Another common idiom to the
same purpose would be "relations, strictly speaking".
As for "elementary relatives", Peirce uses
this term in the 1870 Logic of Relatives.
See, for example, CP 3.121ff and a later
remark at 3.602ff.
See Also:
☞ https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Peirce&as_epq=Elementary+Relative
And toward the end of this section:
☞
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Logic_:_Introduction#Operational_Representation
Regards,
Jon
Gary, all,
I used the phrase “relations proper” to emphasize that I was speaking
of relations in the strict sense of the word, not in any looser sense.
I have been reading Peirce for almost 50 years now and I can't always
recall where I read a particular usage. In the 1970s I spent a couple
of years poring through the microfilm edition of his Nachlass and read
a lot of still unpublished material that is not available to me now.
But there is no doubt from the very concrete notations and examples
that he used in his early notes and papers that he was talking about
the formal objects that are variously called elementary relations,
elements of relations, individual relations, or ordered tuples.
I did, however, more recently discuss a number of selections from Peirce's
1880 Algebra of Logic that dealt with the logic of relatives, so I can say
for a certainly that he was calling these objects or the terms that denote
them by the name of “individual relatives”.
See the excerpts and discussion in the following series of blog posts.
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/01/30/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-preliminaries/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/01/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-1/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/03/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-2/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/11/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-3/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/12/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-4/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/15/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-5/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/16/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-6/
And especially the series of comments on Selection 7.
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/02/28/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-selection-7/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/13/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-1/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/19/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-2/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/23/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-3/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/04/24/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-4/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/05/01/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80%A2-comment-7-5/
Regards,
Jon
On 11/27/2015 12:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Jon,
If it’s critically important to understand the difference between “relations
proper” and “elementary relations”, can
you tell us what that difference is, or point us to an explanation? These are
not terms that Peirce uses, so how can
the rest of us tell whether we understand them or not? Being unfamiliar with
those terms does not indicate lack of
understanding of the important concepts they signify.
Gary f.
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27-Nov-15 11:16
Gary, all,
It is critically important to understand the difference between relations
proper and elementary relations, also known
as tuples.
It is clear from his first work on the logic of relative terms that Peirce
understood this difference and its
significance.
Often in his later work he will speak of classifying relations when he is
really classifying types of elementary
relations or single tuples.
The reason for this is fairly easy to understand. Relations proper are a vastly
more complex domain to classify than
types of tuples so one naturally reverts to the simpler setting as a way of
getting a foothold on the complexity of
the general case.
But nothing but confusion will reign from propagating the categorical error.
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 .
