Jerry: Well, we are now making some minor progress, not precise progress but rough progress.
You wrote: " JAS We simply prefer different but equally valid (and equally Peircean) analyses of a proposition--you throw everything possible into the predicate, leaving only an indicated subject; I throw everything possible into the subject, leaving only a continuous predicate. I agree that those two methods are logically equivalent. Logically equivalent? Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning." John Sowa's statements were given in the context of 'proposition analysis.' From the "Handbook of Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics," page 5: "logically equivalent propositions: compound propositions that involve the same variables and have the same truth table." Now that wasn't too bad, was it? A precise, referenced definition of logically equivalent propositions, from a mathematics reference to boot. There is much more to say about your next statement: "No such equivalence relationship is possible, linguistically, either logically, propositionally, syntactically or semantically." But time is short and it is sunny outside.. A document that lists these impossible linguistic relationships (natural language => structured graphics => mathematics) is located at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272238246_Augmented_Model-Exchange_Isomorphism_Version_11 Take care, be good to yourself and have fun, Joe On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:52 PM Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > Joseph, List: > > Ohhhh! > > It appears that I misread your question and that my statement was slightly > ambiguous. > > Let us distinguish two meaning. > Without going into my personal philosophy of mathematics, I offer the > following: > > 1. Roughly speaking, a mathematical equivalence relation is defined > (described) by reflectivity and symmetry and transitivity, all three > mathematical operations being necessary > > 2. Roughly speaking, a logical equivalency relation is not constrained by > these mathematical terms. > > Roughly speaking, an example is the term “energy” as it is used physical, > chemical and psychological systems of thought. > > At least, those are the sorts of meaning I was referring to when I wrote > the email. > > I hope that this clarifies the issue. > > Underlying these emails is the unstated pre-suppositions that mathematical > terminology is not ‘a priori’ compelling in all philosophical discourse. > Over the years, I think that my posts show that, in the general sense, I do > not find mathematical terminology to be compelling. Mathematical > terminology can be highly compelling when it is in reference to other > symbol systems (sign systems) where the perceptions of correspondence > truths are evident. Thus when mathematical symbols are used in reference > to physical units of measure, it is possible for the combined symbol > systems to be not only compelling arguments about the natural relations > among objects but also to show predictive relations for future observations > / experiments. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > On Mar 21, 2019, at 3:48 PM, joseph simpson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jerry: > > It is a trivial question. > > You made the following statement: > > "Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning." > > I asked: > > "What is the precise mathematical meaning of "logical equivalence?"" > > This should not present any undue stress on your ability to answer. > > It does not appear that a useful 'precise mathematical meaning' of logical > equivalence would be a secret. > > I do not feel compelled to state the simple question again. > > Do you have the ability to provide a simple answer? > > Take care, have fun and be good to yourself, > > Joe > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:52 PM Jerry LR Chandler < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> List, Joseph: >> >> Exactly what is an equivalence relation? >> Is it possible for any two “instants” to be exactly the same as one >> another? >> Are we dealing with reality or merely mathematical jargon? >> >> Joseph Simpson post is very strange… >> Is he for or against the concept of “exact equivalence relationships"? >> >> On Mar 21, 2019, at 2:37 PM, joseph simpson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jerry: >> >> You wrote: >> >> "Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning. >> >> No such equivalence relationship is possible, linguistically, either >> logically, propositionally, syntactically or semantically." >> >> What is the precise mathematical meaning of "logical equivalence?" >> >> Take care, be good to yourself and have fun, >> >> Joe >> >> >> Thank you for your good wishes. >> >> You can relax and rest assured that I take excellent care of myself, I am >> good to myself and I enjoy life. >> >> May I ask you to gather up you courage and express what you mean? >> >> If you lack the courage to participate in a public forum, then please >> communicate with me in private. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:17 PM Jerry LR Chandler < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> List, John >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2019, at 8:34 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> JAS >>> >>> We simply prefer different but equally valid (and equally Peircean) >>> analyses of a proposition--you throw everything possible into the >>> predicate, leaving only an indicated subject; I throw everything >>> possible into the subject, leaving only a continuous predicate. >>> >>> >>> I agree that those two methods are logically equivalent. >>> >>> >>> Logically equivalent? >>> Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning. >>> >>> No such equivalence relationship is possible, linguistically, either >>> logically, propositionally, syntactically or semantically. >>> >>> In my view, this barely qualifies as informal jargon. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Jerry >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Joe Simpson >> “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people >> attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, >> depends on unreasonable people.” >> George Bernard Shaw >> Git Hub link: >> https://github.com/jjs0sbw >> Research Gate link: >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3 >> YouTube Channel >> https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw >> Web Site: >> https://systemsconcept.org/ >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> > > -- > Joe Simpson > “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people > attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, > depends on unreasonable people.” > George Bernard Shaw > Git Hub link: > https://github.com/jjs0sbw > Research Gate link: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3 > YouTube Channel > https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw > Web Site: > https://systemsconcept.org/ > > > -- Joe Simpson “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” George Bernard Shaw Git Hub link: https://github.com/jjs0sbw Research Gate link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw Web Site: https://systemsconcept.org/
----------------------------- 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 .
