Dear list,
I am not sure whether I am not heard or I am being ignored. I suppose when I hear crickets, it could be either or both or neither. Yet, the question is posed where if the distinction between internal and external objects are important enough to matter so as not to be trifling; that it ought to be saved when discussing general matters regarding triadic relations, then that rule should be remembered in any algorithm put forth regarding relations of sign object interpretant or object sign interpretant. But I don’t see how this can be done. Will no one help me? Where is the reference that decides the matter, or is this distinction not important enough for a philosopher? If the distinction is not important enough for a philosopher, then Peirce, surely, would have ignored or not treated of the matter. With best wishes, Jerry R On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:03 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/7/2018 10:51 AM, Francesco Bellucci wrote: > >> But what does "map his terminologies to FOL" mean, really? >> > > I apologize. The word 'map' in that sentence was a careless > mistake. I've been working on AI and computational linguistics > for years, and I fully realize the enormous range of difficulties. > For example, I have been quoting Peirce's note to B. E. Smith > for years. > > So, it is one thing to say that we should evaluate Peirce's >> semiotic ideas on the background of logic: this I agree >> wholeheartedly and I wrote a book based precisely on this idea. >> > > Yes. I have read many of your writings and cited some of them. > I think they're very good. > > But I want to emphasize that a very useful subset of any natural > language can indeed be mapped to FOL. The earliest example is > Ockham's theory of propositions, which is Part II of Summa Logicae. > > In that book, which Peirce had lectured on at Harvard, Ockham > developed a model-theoretic semantics for a very useful subset > of Latin: simple sentences in Aristotle's four sentence types, > and Boolean connectives for AND, OR, NOT, and IF-THEN. > That version of Latin can express a large subset of FOL. > > Furthermore, the discourse representation structures (DRS) by > Hans Kamp, which are widely used in computational linguistics, > are limited to FOL. In fact, they are isomorphic to Peirce's > Alpha + Beta EGs. For an overview, see slides 25 to 32 of > http://jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf > > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
