List, John: The fresh link works fine. Thank You!
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 3:05 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Are you altering the meaning of the texts of CSP? >> Can you relate your existential graphs to 3.420-3.421? > > I'm interpreting what he wrote about EGs in terms of his > algebraic notation of 1885. Every Alpha and Beta EG can > be mapped to a statement in the first-order subset of his > algebra of 1885. > Frankly, it is very risky to make such conceptual leaps, especially with CSP wandering rhetoric! The critical issue is the nature of the relation between grammar and algebra and mathematical diagrams relating mathematical concepts. How do mathematical diagrams relate to logical diagrams and how do both logical diagrams and mathematical diagrams relate to radicals (as representations of chemical diagrams)? Are the words (medad monad, diads, …) anything more than the count of omissions of proper names from a sentence? If so, what? > If there had been any a statement in one that could not be > mapped to an equivalent statement in the other, he would > certainly have said so. An intersting conjecture. I, of course, am exceedingly skeptical about all such conjectures (Of course, I make exceptions for my own conjectures! :-) ) > >> I find this reading to be problematic because of the dyadic >> nature of the forces between electrical particles and hence >> the structure of material graphs, adjunctions, and biological >> sign relationships. > > In CP 3.420-421, he discussed analogies with 19th century > ideas about valence, and the kinds of chemical diagrams that > were based on pre-quantum theories. Even then, he added > a hedging phrase 'somewhat closely': > >> A rhema is somewhat closely analogous to a chemical atom or >> radicle with unsaturated bonds (CP 3.421) > > Note his example of a "univalent radicle": H-O- > And a "bivalent radicle": -O-O-S-O-O- > > Those diagrams show the limits of chemical theory in his day. Why do you think these two examples, both based on inorganic ionic radicals, are the limits of chemistry in his day? In the 1890’s he wrote a review on an organic radicals related to a trivalent COVALENT bond (acetylene). This is crucial from a graph theory point of view as it is an example of a non-linear radical that can represent a branched structure. This issue goes to the essence of the difference between chemical extension and grammatical extension and mathematical extension. > > In contrast with the rather primitive chemistry, I believe > that many of Peirce's logical ideas are still at the forefront > of the latest research. For example, note slides 45 & 46 of > http://jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf > Your beliefs often concur with mine, but this is SO wide an assertion! In particular, can you extend your views of graphs to Tarsi’s meta-languages and Lesniewski’s part-whole relations in terms of medads monads, dyads,… ? These arguments take a different notion of extension / intension. (I have not yet read the Church pages…) > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
