Gary R,
Reverting to a post you made over a month ago … I had written something about
genuine triadic relations, such as are embodied in the processes of
representing and determining — which in my opinion are both genuine, partly
because they are mirror images of each other.
By that I meant
Gary F. list,
As I just wrote in the other thread we've been dialoguing in, I don't
really see at the moment any way to make headway in this matter of the
vectors. The kind of example which Parmentier and I offer aren't convincing
to you, while you counter with alternatives which I simply don't
Gary F, list,
As I said, I'll leave you the last (substantive) word in these two matters
in this thread. So, as your last word included questions, I'd suggest that
we move the discussion off-list. We seem to be talking past each other and,
again, that may be (1) because our purposes are different
Jon, List,
is it true, that, other than in dyadic relations, in triadic relations there are much more than one kind of symmetry? if the sets are X, Y, Z, and variables of elements of either sets are x, y, z with x E X, y E Y, z E Z:
three kinds of dyadic symmetry or linear symmetry:
-(x,y)
Hello Gary R., List,
Let me point to a place where Peirce explicitly discusses the kinds of
questions that are behind the point I'm trying to make about the priority of
graph theoretic conceptions and figures for analyzing these sorts of relations.
Here are two excerpts from a long footnote
Hello Gary R., List,
Would anything be lost if we substituted the language "directed graphs" for
"categorial vectors"? One reason I ask is that Peirce spent a fair amount of
time and effort sorting through and responding to A.B. Kempe's various works on
mathematical form. One of the
