From the list perspective:

Jas wrote:

I have said it before, I will say it again--we have different purposes, so we 
reach different conclusions.

--

Since perspective is important, it might be a good idea to explicate the 
differences in purpose each of you entertain.

best,

Auke

> Op 24 januari 2021 om 5:32 schreef "John F. Sowa" <[email protected]>:
> 
> 
>     Jon AS, List,
> 
>     The *opinion* that the EG version of June 1911 is Peirce's best is 
> Peirce's own, as he stated in December, after six months of further 
> consideration.  The fact that he stated it in a lengthy letter to a member of 
> Lady Welby's significs group is further evidence of its importance.
> 
>     That opinion is further supported by the development of logic in the 
> following century.  Please read beyond slide 12 of 
> http://jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf .  See also 
> http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf .  Slide 2 of ppe.pdf has a link to a 76-page 
> article published in the Journal of Applied Logics that goes into all the 
> details.
> 
>     One of the most important features of the 1911 version is its ability to 
> serve as a foundation for Gerhard Gentzen's two systems of natural deduction 
> and clause form (published in 1934).  Those two system have had immense 
> influence on modern proof procedures -- including the development of modern 
> methods of computational theorem proving.
> 
>     But in 1988, Larry Wos, one of the pioneers in theorem proving methods, 
> published an unsolved problem about relating Gentzen's two systems.  This 
> problem is important for automatically relating two different proof 
> procedures.  In 2011, I published the solution in Semiotica.  For a quick 
> outline, see egintro.pdf or ppe.pdf.  For the details, see the article in the 
> J. of Applied Logics.
> 
>     That proof is clean and clear in terms of the 1911 EGs.  It's possible in 
> terms of the earlier versions, but it is more complex and harder to discover.
> 
>     Another important point:  The 1911 EGs can be generalized beyond two 
> dimensions for "stereoscopic moving images".  It's not an accident that 
> Peirce mentioned them in L231, but he had not yet decided how to proceed with 
> the details.  ppe.pdf  (and the JAL article) present a generalization.  
> Whether that is what Peirce was thinking is not clear, but it shows that the 
> 1911 EGs are sufficient to support something along the lines that Peirce was 
> contemplating.
> 
>     As for the point that negation must be inferred, please reread slides 11 
> and 12 of egintro.pdf.  Note that observing if-then is impossible (for a 
> lengthy discussion, see Hume and the lengthy debates that followed).
> 
>     But the inference required for negation is quite simple:  If you expect 
> something and don't observe it, you can use the word 'not'.  Children learn 
> to use the word 'not' sometime after their second birthday -- around the same 
> time that they learn to use the words 'I' and 'you' correctly.  But they 
> don't learn to use 'if-then' and 'or' until much later.
> 
>     And the idea that children (or even adults) would learn 'not' from the 
> derivation that Peirce presented in 1906 or the one in R669  is absurd.
> 
>     There is much more to say about all these issues, but please read at 
> least to the end of egintro.pdf.  It also has many references for further 
> study.
> 
>     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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe 
> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>     ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and 
> co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
> 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Reply via email to