List: A brief comment on this sentence.
> On Dec 27, 2017, at 6:23 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > This distinction arises from the circumstance that where you have a triplet ∴ > you have 3 pairs; and where you have a pair, you have 2 units. What is the distinction that CSP is referring to for any triplet? I offer a simple perspective of the term “unit” as I have used it in boarded context of “The union of units unite the unity”. This is a poly-semeiotic perspective of the concept of unit, not a monadic semeiotic perspective of unit. Let the triplet be expressed in any system of units. Say, 0, ^, *. Then, a single unit can not be the same as a pair of units. And, a pair of units can not be the same as a triplet of units. Then the three possible pairs of units are: * ^ 0 ^ ^ *. In set theory, a pair is signified by two symbols in parentheses ( _ , _ ), in total, represented by five symbols. These symbols, in set theory, have the meaning of creating an ordered pair. Thus, a triplet of symbols generates six ordered pairs within set theory. * ^ ^ * 0 ^ ^ 0 ^ * * ^ The “difference that makes a difference” is the specification of attributes of the meaning of a unit. In logic, one can distinguish between a mono-semeiotic unit and a poly-semeiotic unit. Such a distinction is necessary for the logic of chemistry. 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 .
