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
John, List:
JFS: In both graphs in your note below, the thin line may be read as "that"'
Yes, of course; that is obvious from the syntax of the English sentences
that I translated into those two graphs--although, as I said in that post,
it is a *dotted *line, not a *thin *line.
JFS: But
Jon,
In both graphs in your note below, the thin line may be read as "that"'
A thinks THAT C is a good girl.
A is claiming THAT A is thinking THAT C is a good girl.
Both of those sentences and both of those EGs can be translated to and from the
IKL logic of 2006, which uses the symbol "that"
Helmut, List:
Different kinds of possibility can be addressed with different formal
systems of modal logic--alethic, deontic, doxastic, dynamic, epistemic,
temporal, etc. For example, deontic logic defines possibility as
*permissibility
*and necessity as *obligation*, which is why its
John, List,
JFS: I have responded precisely to every one of Jon's comments.
GR: A review of your recent exchange strongly suggests to me and, I
believe, anyone who might undertake that review herself, that you have
responded *precisely* to *very few *of Jon's comments. I would say that you
have
Gary,
I have responded precisely to every one of Jon's comments. I am now writing an
article with the title "Delta Graphs: The Logic of Pragmatism". I'll send a
draft to P-list in a few days. I guarantee that it will include precise
reasons why Delta graphs are based on metalanguage --
List,
I put a new name to this, because I am not inside the discussion, just want to mention a problem I have with the topic. First, there are different types of possibility: Is it not definite but possible about the past or about the future, is it due to limited knowledge or to different
