### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:09:42 -0400 From: Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu Reply-To: Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu Subject: RE: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Dear

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

Peirce edition Malgosia, list, Responses interleaved. - Original Message - From: malgosia askanas To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition [BU] Yes, the theorematic-vs

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

[mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Irving Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:34 PM To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition Ben, Gary, Malgosia, list It would appear from the various responses that. whereas

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

=%22Mathematics+is+the+study+of+what+is+true+of+hypothetical+states+of+things%22 - Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition Irving

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

-theoretical principles), etc. Best, Ben - Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition Malgosia, list, Responses interleaved

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

@listserv.iupui.edu Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition This latest post caught my attention. Since my first degree was a B.S. in computational mathematics, I thought that I would weigh-in. One can make the distinctions

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

bud...@nyc.rr.com - Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:41:08 -0500 From: Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com Reply-To: Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Irving, Do you

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

Irving wrote, quoting Peirce MS L75:35-39: Deduction is only of value in tracing out the consequences of hypotheses, which it regards as pure, or unfounded, hypotheses. Deduction is divisible into sub-classes in various ways, of which the most important is into corollarial and theorematic.

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

About two and a half weeks ago, Garry Richmond wrote (among other things), in reply to one of my previous posts: You remarked concerning an older, artificial, and somewhat inaccurate terminological distinction between practical or applied on the one hand and pure or abstract on the other. In

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

', The Essential Peirce v. 2, see p. 96. See quote in Corollarial Reasoning in the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms. - Original Message - From: Irving To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Gary! The issue you raise about how deduction and induction should be categorised is an interesting one. I had always thought of deduction as falling clearly under secondness, due to the compulsion involved. But you are right to note that in theorematic deduction

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

1. Hypothesis (Abduction) 2. Induction 3. Deduction But isn't it also the case that we can mix firsts, seconds and thirds if we think it appropriate. As in Terms Propositions Symbols. Best, S *ShortFormContent at Blogger* http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/ On Fri, Mar 2,

### Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

Cathy, list, When I first read your remark suggesting that the birth, growth and development of new hypostatic abstractions should be in the position of 3ns rather than argumentative proof of the validity of the mathematics as I had earlier abduced, I thought this might be another case of the