Thanks Jon. I made a diagram to picture an (1) arbitrary x A returning o
and (2) an arbitrary x a returning 00.
(fn. 16 refers to P's Boole article 1870 and calls this latter 1.) I realize
you have much more complex numbers and calculations in mind.
But the idea of an arbitrary next
Janos, list
I can see a large bowl of soup with many ingredients determining a continuous
range of qualities and flavors, some of which overlap and legislate the
subsequent flavors for an interpretant which moves to stir the bowl a bit or
inhale through the nostrils, recognizing that the
, respectively. It is only for
infinite sums and products that we need a theory of limits.
In the language of lattices and partial orders, individuals and simples
would be called atoms and co-atoms, respectively, if I recall correctly.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/4/2015 3:33 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote
. It is only for
infinite sums and products that we need a theory of limits.
In the language of lattices and partial orders, individuals and simples
would be called atoms and co-atoms, respectively, if I recall correctly.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/4/2015 3:33 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote
Gary,
Can you combine elements of both heuristic efficiency and strong iconicity
through parenthesis and dotted lines?
v(F.)
The parenthesis place a limitation on the thought of the operation. The dotted
line suggests the identity of the operation throughout that
Curious. The formula S is P or S is not P do not seem to carry enough
information to decide the question.
On the other hand, if John lacks reference, the statements John is blue
and John is not blue are consistent. (trivial empty) Further, one may tempted
to treat these as Universals; (or
...
Jon
Jim Willgoose wrote:
Interesting stuff. There is some debate about what exactly you are
showing.
I take it to be the use of Brown's Laws of Form represented by edges and
nodes.
One of the links exhibits the generation and resolution of branches and
roots
as you
.
So, if said man x doesn't commit suicide or isn't said
man y, then x doesn't fail in business.
Best, Ben
On 1/18/2015 2:05 AM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
Hello Ben.
Not all of these examples seem to fit
Hello Jon, list.
I assembled (from paper and tape) the first 3 rows and columns from W:4 (P.195)
into a pyramid with a square base. I believe the object is a product of a
triple by the power of dual relatives. (9) I can imagine turning it into a
cone with a circular base and so forth. I
jon, list I changed my mind. The simple is the negative of the individual.
This is the last line of section 1. I took the sign ~a as 0 on the grounds
that the product of negated individuals would be 0 if a is the logical sum of
individuals. I then assumed you could introduce something
Thanks Jon.
I put integers to each of the nine dual relatives in the first three columns
and rows. (in Bold print) I then rotated the block left 90 degrees three
times. Crease the diagonals 357 753, tack down the 4 corners , and
pull the apex straight up into a pyramid. Voila!
Jon, list
m i j1,1 / A1 / + 1/ A2 /
i j 1,2 / A2/ + 1/A3 /
i j 1,3 /A3 / + 1.etc. Our old friend a and her
denotation..:)
Jim W
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:00:06 -0500
From: jawb...@att.net
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L]
John,
I liked your poem. Your list of locked-in descriptors could probably be added
to, and then examined in the light of the mutual endangerment of the religious
authorities by the community of investigators. I believe in the open-ended use
of the basic definition of sign without too
Yes! Walking into Mordor with sets of triples. And what is that 'like?'
Jim W
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:54:26 -0500
From: jawb...@att.net
To: jimwillgo...@msn.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Re: Jim Willgoose
At: http
, Jim Willgoose wrote:
Not Frank
=
Not Frank
Frank never felt he had a body
Not Frank
No big toe or little finger
Hand or foot
Not Frank
Who never felt he had an arm
Or a leg
And a thought of his body?
Not an image of his toe
On 2/4/2015 3:33 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
Thanks Jon. I made a diagram to picture an (1) arbitrary x A
returning o and (2) an arbitrary x / a /returning 00.
(fn. 16 refers to P's Boole article 1870 and calls this latter 1.) I
realize you have much more complex numbers and calculations
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce’s 1880 “Algebra Of Logic” Chapter 3 •
Selection 4
Re: Jim Willgoose
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15677
Jim, List,
These are some of the reasons that I prefer
elementary relative to individual relative
and absolute
detail
in the 1870 Logic of Relatives. See the following article, where I added much
in the way of illustrative examples:
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives
Regards,
Jon
On 2/13/2015 5:15 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
Jon, Jerry, list
%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives
Regards,
Jon
On 2/14/2015 3:40 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
Jon,list
Here is a picture of the idea of non-relative term generality. (Boole
class)
Jim W
Inquiry Blog
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/01/30/peirces-1880-algebra-of-logic-chapter-3-%E2%80
to the equation.
Regards,
Jon
On 3/13/2015 10:37 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
Jon, list
I am still working on this passage at end of sec. 3 (W:4 p. 198)
I + J + K = 1 + L + M
but does not imply
(I + J + K)l = (1 + L + M) l
The left side suitably
/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15790
On 3/7/2015 12:31 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
I am somewhat curious about how setting k=3 or k=4
might effect the so-called reduction thesis.
I don't believe the number of converses has any bearing on reducibility.
Whether relations of a given adicity are reducible
/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15787
JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15788
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15789
JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15790
On 3/7/2015 12:31 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
I am somewhat
Jon, list
I think the transposition number can be explained and generalized. You don't
want the number of permutations or the number of relations since this counts
all the identity elements. Take !2 for n elements such that !(n x 2)/n.
single = 0
double= 4/2=2
triple= 15/3 = 5
quadruple=
Jon,list
On another quick note. I think there are advantages to the Cartesian U x U
over the Boolean U since you can draw individuals from the Universe to build
relational classes that aren't already stuck in classes or under predicates.
With Boole, philosophically, there are no 'bare' or
{More about the Colon red herring issue later is you wish.}
On Feb 28, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Jim Willgoose wrote:Thanks Jerry,list.
I feel fortunate that a chemist would take the time to explain some of these
matters. I understand your point about the conventions of standards and
notation. I
Hey Ben,
In one configuration, if the wife remains indefinite for long, she could turn
into any woman. Thus, neither the former Mrs Peirce from the Cambridge area or
the current Juliet would be particularly suicidal if Charles fails in a New
York business deal. Rather, any woman would now
finding any meaningful conteIi
appears to me that by augmenting the physical-chemical concept with an
undefined base (plane?), coherence is lost.
Have fun!
Cheers
jerry
On Mar 4, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Jim Willgoose wrote:Hi Jerry.
There is no great entelechy driving my interests other than curiosity
Of Logic” Chapter 3 •
Selection 4
Re: Jim Willgoose
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15677
Jim, List,
These are some of the reasons that I prefer
elementary relative to individual relative
and absolute, monadic, or non-relative to
term of singular
of nominal thinking.
But I know I've reviewed and we've discussed this many times before,
so I'm thinking I might save a few quanta of mental effort by going
back and looking up some of the previous visitations.
May take a while to collect the links ...
Jon
On 2/17/2015 11:05 PM, Jim
List,
Are there any thoughts on the best way to express a restriction on
decomposition? There has been some suggestion that logic lacks the resources
to prevent elimination/weakening or an otherwise taking apart of what has been
put together. In fact, what has been put together could be
Jon,
Good to see you back. I found myself in 1880 inside of a monad with all its
windows closed. Astonishingly, I then discovered all the windows had been
welded shut and I was indiced negative tracing infinitely low-bound zero. I was
looking fast for odd powers to bore in that I might
Jerry, list
Ok. You are the chemist. However, this may be a little unfair to logic, in
so far as I didn't even add a quantifier to allow for diversity of yea and nay
if need be. I used the designator this to suggest a single simple case. It
seems that many of the stated nominal
Hello Jon, list (puzzle below for experts)
I got blown well downwind into conjugacy classes with the 1880 AOL ch. 3. At
the time, I was trying to make sense of the continuity of ch.3 with the
previous chapters and also the forward historical development of relation
logic.
I was struck by
quality; and if such thing or things exist, the collection is
a single thing whose existence consists in the existence of all those very
things.According to this definition, a collection is an ens rationis. [—] A
collection has essence and may have existence.
On Aug 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Jim
Jerry,
There is a suggestion that Suarez holds that with finite being you cannot
really separate their being (existence) and essence. However, the ens a se
would not be metaphysically necessary! Thus, an atom, as you suggest, might
possess its 'being-in/from-itself' but fail to do so
Michael,
The subordination of the term right to militia has been there for some time. I
have understood it this way without any analysis of 18th century linguistics.
It has also been legally noted and used, for instance, during the bootlegging
era where the presence of guns used membership in
36 matches
Mail list logo
