Jerry, Jon, List,
Peirce never used the term "graphic object". In his classification of the
sciences, pure mathematics does not depend on anything else. Phaneroscopy is
free to use any imaginable mathematical patterns to analyze, classify, and
interpret anything in the phaneron, no matter
Jon, John, List:
The attempts to interpret the on going discussions leads to simple questions
about meaning of symbols and logics.
Given a graphic object, how does one decipher the logical content of it?
What types of semantics can be associated with what types of visual
distinctions?
How
Jon, Jeff, Gary, List,
I am now writing the article on Delta graphs. In a few days, I'll send a
preview. For convenience, see the attached Delta376.txt. (Since Peirce's
paragraphs tend to be very long, I added some additional paragraph breaks,)
I believe that there is no way to interpret
John, List:
JFS: For every version of first-order logic, there is a fixed domain D1 of
entities in the domain of quantification. Those entities could be anything
of any kind--that includes abstractions, fictions, imaginary beasts, and
even hypothetical or possible worlds.
When using Beta EGs to
Jeff, Jon, List,
In his 1885 Algebra of Logic, Peirce presented the modern versions of both
first-order and second-order predicate logic. The only difference between his
notation and the modern versions is the choice of symbols. Since Peano wanted
to make his logic publishable by ordinary
Jeff, List:
Indeed, as Don Roberts summarizes, "The Gamma part of EG corresponds,
roughly, to second (and higher) order functional calculi, and to modal
logic. ... By means of this new section of EG Peirce wanted to take account
of abstractions, including qualities and relations and graphs
