Thread: JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00094.html JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00098.html JFS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00100.html
JA:
As far as "predicate" and "proposition" go, usage varies promiscuously. Some people use them to mean syntactic elements, in the S & I domains. Some people use them to mean objective elements, in the Object domain. In a sign relational setting we need to admit both types of elements and we need to be clear about their distinctive roles in the triadic sign relation at hand. It can help to use a tactic that is common in computer science, simply tack the epithet "expression" or "name" on the end of the formal object name you have in mind in order to denote the associated semiotic entity, e.g., function / function expression, predicate / predicate expression, proposition / propositional expression, and so on. In many contexts one can then use the terms equivocally in the usual way, adding the epithet only when necessary to focus on the syntax.
On 2/10/2017 2:14 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
JA: As far as "predicate" and "proposition" go, usage varies promiscuously.
JFS: Logicians are consistent in the way they use those words. Well, no, they aren't. Most logicians and other perfectly sensible folks are hardly even consistent in the way they use those words within a single context, much less across the whole wide literature and history of logic. And yet there are sensible ways of resolving the resulting Babel. That is a big part of what the sign relational framework is for. By the way, it isn't what one calls the syntactic structures -- expressions, graphs, propositions, rhemes, sentences, whatever -- that makes one a nominalist, it is the claim that the syntactic entities are sufficient. If syntactic entities are not sufficient then there must be other sorts of objective entities that the syntactic entities denote. In many cases of practical interest we can recover the isomorphic structure of the object domain as equivalence classes of the syntactic entities. Regards, Jon -- inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA 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 .
