Re: Peirce Papers Preservation
At: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8116

Irving,

Turning to your list of points ...

IA: My points were -- to put them as simplistically and succinctly as
    possible -- that:

IA: (a) _Studies in Logic_ did not get laid aside because of the diffusion of
    its contents (Epicurean logic; probability, along with algebraic logic)
    but because:

IA: (i) philosophers either mathophobic or innumerate were unprepared
    or unable to tackle the algebraic logic; while:

IA: (ii) the mathematician who were capable of handling it did not ignore
    _Studies in Logic_ in the "pre-Principia" day (witness Dodgson's being
    inspired to devise falsifiability trees by Ladd-Franklin's treatment of
    the antilogism and Marquand's contribution on logic machines;  witness
    the praise for _Studies in Logic_ by Venn, Schröder, and even Bertrand
    Russell's recommendation to Couturat that he read _Studies in Logic_);

IA: (b) once the "Fregean revolution" began taking effect, in the
    "post-Principia" era, not only _Studies in Logic_ slid off the
    radar even for those capable of handling the mathematics, but so
    did most of the work in algebraic logic from Boole and De Morgan
    through Peirce and Schröder to even the "pre-Principia" Whitehead,
    in favor of logistic, that is in favor of the function-theoretic
    approach rather than the older algebraic approach to logic, and
    THAT was why, in 1941, Tarski expressed surprise and chagrin that
    the work of Peirce and Schröder hadn't been followed through and
    that, in 1941, algebraic logic languished in the same state in which
    it had existed forty-five years earlier.  Incidentally, Gilbert Ryle
    attributed the interest of philosophers in logistic preeminently to
    the advertisements in favor of it by Bertrand Russell, convincing
    philosophers that the "new" mathematical logic could help them
    resolve or eliminate philosophical puzzles regarding language
    and epistemology (at the same time, we might add, that Carnap
    was arguing for the use of the logical analysis of language
    in eliminating metaphysics).

IA: (I do not believe that in my previous posts I said anything to the
    contrary or said anything that could be construed to the contrary.)

I need to say something about the use of the terms "algebraic" and "functional",
as they tend to have a diversity of meanings, and some of their connotations 
have
shifted over the years, even in the time that I have observed them being 
applied to
styles of logical notation.

We used to use terms like "algebraic logic" and "algebra of logic" almost as
pejoratives for the older tradition in symbolic logic, going back even as far
Leibniz, but that was due to using the term "algebra" in a very narrow sense,
connoting a restriction to finitary operations, those that could be built up
from a finite basis of binary operations.

More often lately, "algebraic" tends to be used for applications of category 
theory,
but category theory is abstracted from the concrete materials of functions 
mapping
one set to another, making category theory the apotheosis of functions as a 
basis
for mathematical practice.  Moreover, Peirce's use of ∏ and ∑ for quantifiers is
actually more functional in spirit than the later use of symbols like ∀ and ∃.

These are just some of the reasons that I find myself needing another criterion
for distinguishing Peirce's paradigm of logical notation from later devolutions.

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/
word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv.  To 
remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the 
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message.  To post a message to the 
list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

Reply via email to