List, Jon:
Thank you for the clarification of the issue of ampliative logic from your
perspective and for the textual references. Very helpful. Thanks.
"The term "ampliative" appears 25 times in CP,…”
This is rather surprising. One rarely if ever sees this term in logical texts
today.
Gary F., List:
GF: If the context involves “the ideal state of complete information”, then
the contrast is between an ideal “individual” and an ideal “community”--not
between real people and real communities.
I read the context as contrasting a real individual with the ideal
community, any one
Gary F., John, List:
GF: Consequence comes before negation.
JFS: That is a technical point from one stage in the development of
Peirce's systems of logic.
Apparently, we still disagree about this. It is a technical point that
applies to logic in general, not merely "one stage in the development
Dear Jon, All ...
Peirce's explorations in logic and the theory of signs opened several
directions of generalization from logics of complete information (LOCI)
to theories of partial information (TOPI). Naturally we hope all these
avenues of approach will eventually converge on a unified base
Gary f., list,
You said:
I wonder which case applies to this early (1868) remark of Peirce’s:
“The individual man, since his separate existence is manifested only by
ignorance and error,
so far as he is anything apart from his fellows, and from what he and they
are to be,
is only a
Jon Alan, list,
GF: a relation of negation can be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. I wonder
which case applies to this early (1868) remark of Peirce’s: “The individual
man, since his separate existence is manifested only by ignorance and error, so
far as he is anything apart from his
Supp-supplement: Sorry, in my previous two posts I had gotten confused. I try again (everybody may try three times, isnt it?)
Quotation marks indicate a concept, minusses indicate a quotation. About his own universe, a propositioner cannot justifiedly, nonparadoxically, say:
Supplement: My deduction in the middle of the second paragraph is false. It is only true, if we assume, that a concept is constructed by existence- or by making up: It might be, that in the universe in which no horses exist, people have made up the concept of them nayway, as it might be,
Jon, Gary, List,
I didnt get a feeling so far about intuistic logic, the not excluded middle and the double negation being something else than the non-existent negation. All I can do, is reconstruct these ideas with my own thoughts, otherwise I cannot understand them. I am very interested
