Cf : Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations : 7 At : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/07/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-7/
Re: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations : 5 At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/26/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-5/ Re: It's a common mistake to confound infinite with unbounded. A process can continue without end and still be "bounded in a nutshell". So a sign process can pass from sign to interpretant sign to next interpretant sign ad infinitum without ever leaving a finite set of signs. The number of questions I got about that statement tells me I should have delineated the context in which it was set a little more fully. A "sign process" in this context is simply a sequence of signs, of the sort we might observe in communicational, computational, or experimental settings. For people who remember the more ancient arts of AI, cognitive science, and cybernetics, it may help to recall the orders of considerations arising in protocol analysis. It goes with this territory to assume the formal equivalent of "categorical perception". This means we can set aside the subtleties of token haecceity -- the fact each instance of a sign is distinct from every other instance -- along with the possibility of signs being sampled from a continuous medium. In this setting we are left with two interpretations for "infinite and bounded", depending on whether the sign domain has a quantitative measure defined on it, or not. In the first case, "bounded" means the sequence never exceeds a finite bound in the relevant measure. In the second case, "bounded" means the sequence never leaves a finite set. Regards, Jon On 10/26/2019 3:05 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Cf: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations : 5 At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/10/26/semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-5/ Re: Recursion Again At: https://richardcoyne.com/2019/10/26/recursion-again/ A recurring correction of a recurring mistake: It's a common mistake to confound infinite with unbounded. A process can continue without end and still be "bounded in a nutshell". So a sign process can pass from sign to interpretant sign to next interpretant sign ad infinitum without ever leaving a finite set of signs. So let that be the end of that. Regards, Jon
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
