-
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
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
[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
=%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
-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
@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
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
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.
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
', 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
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
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,
12 matches
Mail list logo
