Gary F, list,
Yes, it appears that we continue to disagree on this matter of terminology,
and especially since I don't believe it is merely a matter of our possibly
different analytical purposes, although that is no doubt part of it and may
even be at the heart of it.
For now I'll just comment
Jon, list,
about ordered and unordered pairs: In the mathematical books I had read in, there was only the way of writing ordered pairs. And symmetry was only explained by the example of a subset of a product of two same sets (A x A). I had thought then, if you have two different sets, A and B,
Gary F, list,
Gary, since I'm caught up in holiday activities, end of the year tasks and
errands, while at the same time preparing to vacate my Village apartment
and move up to Harlem for about a week, I will not be able to respond to
this revised post--my earlier response to your, then, not
Sorry, folks, I was called away to domestic duties before I finished
proofreading that last post properly, but sent it anyway. Here’s a corrected
version, which should replace the earlier one. —gary f.
Gary R,
I guess we will have to disagree on these terminological issues. I have
Gary R,
I guess we will have to disagree on these terminological issues. I have every
reason to believe that Peirce’s choice of terms in his “Nomenclature and
Divisions of Triadic Relations” is as careful and exact as it is in the rest of
the 1903 Syllabus, and for that matter as exact as
