On 8/4/2019 3:30 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Again, the Cantorian pseudo-continuum has turned out to be an adequate /model /of continuity for many (most?) mathematical, scientific, and practical purposes; but it does not satisfy the criteria that Peirce established for the conception of a /true /continuum.
Yes. But I agree with Putnam that Aristotle's distinction is sufficient to support Peirce's semeiotic: 1. The parts of a continuum are smaller parts that are also continuua. 2. A point is a marker on a continuum, not a part of the continuum. 3. No set (or collection) of points can become a continuum. These assumptions produce a theory of mereology that is a simplified subset of the theories by Lesniewski, Tarski, and Whitehead. Tarski based his version on Lesniewski's, but Whitehead's was independent. 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 .
