List, John: > On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:31 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jerry >>> No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction >>> between subject and predicate. >> Again, I find this dogmatic statement to be a personal claim that is without >> general scientific meaning. This statement is simply out of touch with >> current state of inquiry into the nature of logic. > > It's a precise observation about mathematical logics from Boolean > algebra to Peirce's several different versions of logic to the many > versions of mathematical logics in use today. One reason why they > don't make a binary distinction between subjects and predicates is > that the overwhelming majority of them don't have any syntactic > category named subject.
Your answer is NOT related to my statement. Again, your assertion is irrelevant because of the clear and distinct differences between the logic of the natural sciences and the symbolism of mathematics. Again, you simply ignore assertions that you disagree with and then twist irrelevant claims about this and that to construct an irrelevant narrative. CSP was a scientist and based his logic on scientific logic. A clear example of the distinction between mathematical logic and his bedrock logic is the concept of mathematical identity and CSP concept of the construction of a line of identity. One example of this distinction is the MS 462, page 8, 34 (cited by Roberts, p. 47.) At times, your writings suggest to me a lack an understanding of the basics of mathematics. May I be so bold to remind you that their exists a difference between the conceptualization of a variable as a “general” ( such as the notion of “universal quantifiers” of set theory that over infinities) and a symbol that specifies a single unique object with a specific and unique set of attributes, such as a carbon atom? One has only to note the difference between the meaning of the symbol for chemical element and the associated signs (pragmatic / physically and biologically measurable properties) and the symbol for infinity to grasp the vast gulf between pragmatic subject with predicates (any material object) and a predicate logic associated with universal quantifiers. 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 .
