Jerry C, You directed the question at the end of your post to me, but since I can't improve on what John S. has said about the matter, I'll leave it at that.
Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: John F Sowa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13-Apr-17 18:08 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed? On 4/13/2017 3:59 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > In my mind, I am left with an intractable question: Is a Procrustian > Bed essential to understanding the role of the identity relation in > CSP’s theory of logical graphs of relations? Or, is a semantic > explanation possible? Peirce published his algebraic notation for logic in 1885. The greater flexibility of the 2-D surface allowed more notational variants for existential graphs. He discussed them in many pages of MSS. But I have never seen any example of an Alpha or Beta graph that was inconsistent with a straightforward mapping to his 1885 notation. Do you know of any examples for which there is an inconsistency? If not, I would claim that the issues you raised concern various 19th century theories of chemistry. That's an interesting subject in itself, but I don't believe that it raises any questions that are inconsistent with mapping any Alpha or Beta graph to the algebraic notation. For the Gamma graphs, there are many variations that raise complex issues, but Peirce admitted that much of that work was tentative. I believe that those issues are independent of any questions about chemistry. John
----------------------------- 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 .
