Jeff,
In the note I just sent, I was talking about the version
of EGs in L231. For that version of logic, there can be no difference in
semantics between a scroll and a nest of two ovals.
JBD> In the
case of inductive and abductive inferences, the conditionals may
take a variety of forms:
Jon AS,
This is yet another case where the mathematical
structures are precise, but the words that describe them leave enough
ambiguity to cause confusion.
The beauty of eg1911, as specified in
L231, is its brevity, simplicity, precision, and bare minimum of
verbiage. Every EG that conforms
Jon Schmidt, John Sowa, List,
It might be helpful to make a clearer distinction between what is advantageous
for the purposes of developing the EGs as a formal system of mathematical logic
and what is advantageous for the purposes of developing theories of
philosophical logic.
For the sake
John, All:
JFS: I sent a complete analysis of these issues to you and others on the
CC list.
Any analysis of these issues that treats cuts/shading as primitive in EGs,
rather than derived from the scroll, is *incomplete*. Peirce himself never
claims in R 670 or in RL 231 to be giving a
Dear Jon, List,
I think, classification is justified, if the pair of bins really consists of two mutually exclusive bins. My bins "analysis" and "synthesis" really are mutually exclusive, I think. The hazard is on, I think, when two non-exclusive bins are treated like mutually exclusive ones.
Dear John,
Thanks for the notice of Carolyn Eisele's article, it's always worth
reading what she has to say. We've had some discussions of Peirce's
distinction between theorematic and corollarial reasoning before and
I know there's a respectable amount of literature out there about it.
The
