>> Please, Sung - try to read a basic course in logic. Hmmm…
Sung's syllogism: >>> Burgin's fundamental triad can unify mathematics. [5, 6] (070514-5) >>> >>> Burign's fundamental triad is a Peircean sign. [Figure 3] (070514-6) >>> >>> Therefore Peircean sign (or semiotics) can unify >>> (070514-7) >>> mathematics. (Prediction}. Sung must have meant one of the 3 following valid syllogisms: 1. Major premise: A –> B Minor premise: A –> C Conclusion: some C –> B All logicians are men All logicians are mean Therefore some who are mean are men OR 2. Major premise: A –> B Minor premise: A = C Conclusion: C –> B All logicians are men All logicians are mean, and everyone mean is a logician Therefore all who are mean are men. OR 3. Major premise: A = B Minor premise: A = C Conclusion: C = B All logicians are men and all men are logicians All logicians are mean and anything mean is a logician Therefore all who are mean are men and all men are mean Matt > On Jul 5, 2014, at 6:46 PM, "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina wrote: > > ". . . your syllogism is both formally false and (p70514-1) > logically invalid...the Fallacy of the Illicit > Major." > > The logic behind my syllogism is as follows: > > Major premise: A = B > > Minor premise: A = C > > Conclusion: C = B > > > where A = Burign's fundamental triad, B = the unification of mathematics; > and C = the Peircean triad. > > > Do you still think that my syllogism commits the Fallacy of the Illicit > Major ? > > With all the best. > > Sung > > > > > >> Please, Sung - try to read a basic course in logic. Your endless attempts >> to >> link things with each other, whether it's Saussure with Peirce, or Bohr >> with >> Bohm or whatever - run into theoretical problems, empirical problems and >> logical problems. >> >> Last time, your syllogism was invalid because of the Fallacy of Four >> terms. >> This time, your syllogism is both formally false and logically >> invalid...the >> Fallacy of the Illicit Major. >> >> As a comparison with your format, think about this comparable example. >> >> All logicians are men >> All logicians are mean >> Therefore all men are mean. >> >> Get it? Your syllogism makes the same error. Your terms of 'mathematics' >> and 'Peircean sign' are undistributed in the premises and therefore, can't >> be distributed in the conclusion - but you have done just that. >> >> Edwina >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 5:33 PM >> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Burgin's Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs. >> >> >>> (Undistorted figures are attached.) >>> >>> Stephen R on the Peirce list cited Peirce as saying: >>> >>> "The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to (070514-1) >>> make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to >>> outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to >>> come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of >>> every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology, >>> in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in >>> whatever other department there may be, shall appear >>> as the filling up of its details. The first step toward >>> this is to find simple concepts applicable to every >>> subject." >>> >>> >>> At least one of the potential "simple concepts" that Peirce is referring >>> to above may turn out to be his concept of "irreducible triadicity" >>> embedded in the following quote that Jon recently posted and further >>> explained in Figure 1 and (070514-4): >>> >>> >>> "Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. (070514-2) >>> A definition of a sign will be given which no more >>> refers to human thought than does the definition of >>> a line as the place which a particle occupies, part >>> by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is >>> something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant >>> sign determined or created by it, into the same sort >>> of correspondence with something, C, its object, as >>> that in which itself stands to C. It is from this >>> definition, together with a definition of "formal", >>> that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic. >>> I also make a historical review of all the definitions >>> and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my >>> definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological >>> conception of logic has virtually been quite generally >>> held, though not generally recognized." (NEM 4, 20-21). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> a b >>> C --------> A --------> B >>> | ^ >>> | | >>> |_______________________________| >>> c >>> >>> Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the principle of >>> irreducible >>> triadicity as applied to the definition of a sign. A = sign; B = >>> interpretant; and C = object. a = the sign-object relation (which can >>> be >>> iconic, indexical or symbolic); b = the sign-interpretant relation >>> (which >>> can be rheme, dicisign or argument); c = the object-interpretant >>> relation >>> (which is lacking in Peircean semiotics but may be provided by >>> microsemiotics [1] or biosemiotics (e.g., [2, 3, 4]). >>> >>> >>> >>> "A is determined by C and determines B in such away (070514-3) >>> that C is indirectly determined by B." >>> >>> The purpose of this email is to suggest the possible connection between >>> the Peircean sign and Burgin's fundamental triad shown in Figure 2 that >>> is >>> postulated by Burgin to underlie all mathematical constructions [5, 6]. >>> >>> f >>> X -------------- > I >>> >>> Figure 2. The "fundamental triads" (also called "named sets") of Burgin >>> [5, attached, 6]. X = set of objects called "support"; I = set of >>> objects >>> called "names", and f = "naming relation". >>> >>> The key to connecting Burign's triad and Peircean sign is to re-express >>> the 2-node network in Figure 2 in the form of the 3-node network shown >>> in >>> Figure 3 which is expressed in words in (070514-4). >>> >>> a b >>> X -------- > f --------> I >>> | ^ >>> | | >>> |_______________________________| >>> c >>> Figure 3. Burign's fundamental triad, Figure 2, re-expressed as an >>> irreducible triad of Peirce, Figure 1. a = causality (?); b = convention >>> (?); c = symbol grounding (?). >>> >>> >>> "X determines f which in turn determines I in such (070514-4) >>> a way that I is constrained by or correlated with X." >>> >>> >>> If the Burgin-Peirce connection depicted in Figure 3 turns out to be >>> true, >>> the following syllogism would result: >>> >>> Burgin's fundamental triad can unify mathematics. [5, 6] (070514-5) >>> >>> Burign's fundamental triad is a Peircean sign. [Figure 3] (070514-6) >>> >>> Therefore Peircean sign (or semiotics) can unify >>> (070514-7) >>> mathematics. (Prediction}. >>> >>> With all the best. >>> >>> Sung >>> __________________________________________________ >>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >>> Rutgers University >>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >>> 732-445-4701 >>> >>> www.conformon.net >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >>> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >>> BODY of the message. More at >>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >>> . > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
