Gary, List: > On Jun 19, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > As you appear to approve Jeff D's recent post, while mine was, in large part, > meant to explicate some of the ideas he offered offering little new of my > own, I am mystified as to why you would be interpreting my comments as > "serious contrary assertions" not only to Peirce's but to my own views.
Yes, I appreciated the careful and thoughtful development of Jeff’s argument. I admire his capacity to faithfully integrate the specialized vocabularies of philosophy, mathematics and CSP’s texts. The reasoning is simple with respect to your post. It is the way CSP forms some propositions and propositional functions around sentences with copula. The role of copula in modern logic is minimal but is critical in certain arguments. As far as I can recall at the moment, your views do not require reasoning about copula. If you have examples of the contrary, I would be delighted to learn of your views. Copula play a critical role in scientific logic, for example, in formative operators. In any case, it is not a super-serious issue so do not lose any sleep over it. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
