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

2012-03-14 Thread Irving
- 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

2012-03-13 Thread Irving
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

2012-03-13 Thread Eugene Halton
[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

2012-03-13 Thread Benjamin Udell
=%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

2012-03-12 Thread Benjamin Udell
-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

2012-03-12 Thread Benjamin Udell
@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

2012-03-11 Thread Irving
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

2012-03-11 Thread malgosia askanas
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

2012-03-07 Thread Irving
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

2012-03-07 Thread Benjamin Udell
', 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

2012-03-02 Thread Catherine Legg
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

2012-03-02 Thread Stephen C. Rose
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

2012-02-22 Thread Gary Richmond
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