Joe, List:

> On Mar 21, 2019, at 6:43 PM, joseph simpson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
Simply indigestible!  :-)

Firstly, may I ask if the citation from the handbook was referring to 
“continuous predicates”?

(Frankly, I have participated in two graduate level classes in Combinatorics, 
seeking to understand the relationships between atomic numbers and molecular 
numbers, as well as several years of seminars. I have never seen the notion of 
“continuous predicate” used in combinatorial texts or discussed in seminars.)
  
Are you aware of anyone every using this notion in mathematics? 

Secondly, does this statement mean anything beyond the simple fact that

"if two truth tables are identical in all respects, then they are logically 
equivalent.”

Thirdly, thank you pointing out the distinction.  In certain cases, it is a 
very important distinction.

Finally, Joe, the paper you referenced in your post is very novel.  I like the 
style. From a CSP perspective, it may be the most important application of 
triadicity I have seen.  I will read more as time permits, faintly optimistic 
that a path to chemical applications is conceivable.  Clearly, the potential 
applications of this approach to AI and cybernetics appear to me to be huge, 
realizing that potential could generate substantial recognition.  Best wishes 
for its future developments. 

Comments? Questions?

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 .




Reply via email to