Jon,list. I have tried to construct a working tree until we get to the form "a:a:b" which is a more challenging issue than some, I think. I remember from the NLC (1867) a sort of struggle going on with "mere agreement" and concurrence. I was struck there that "this" or "that" -----is black turned into a nightmare. terms / non-relative relative / / simple non-simple So,1) "this is black" (b) only simple non-relative 2) "this stove is black (s,b) 3) "this black stove is black " (b,b,s) * trouble spot * * I believe in NLC 1867 Peirce introduced an abstract property "blackness" possessed by black things In sec 4 AOL 1880 Peirce says that singular reference is maintained. My feeling is that all of these are non-relatives compounded by external operations. I think of these as compound non-relatives because the operations are external. You could symbolize Boole : sb = SB1 + SB2 + SB3.....etc. "this" or "that" black stove. You don't need to bring in property identity, redundancy, or essentialism. You could, though. Why not? For instance, you could have logical sums for { Sn.. } xor { Bn.. } xor { SBn.. } such that sosmething that is a black stove cannot be black or a stove. Jim W > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 23:02:17 -0500 > From: jawb...@att.net > To: jimwillgo...@msn.com; jerry_lr_chand...@me.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > 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", "monadic", or "non-relative" to > "term of singular reference", since the words > "individual" and "singular" have too many > meanings in too many different contexts. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 2/13/2015 10:21 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote: > > Jon, > > > > Yes. You are right. I should have stayed out of that one on reference. > > The question of generality is open though. > > > > Jim W > > > >> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:04:13 -0500 > >> From: jawb...@att.net > >> To: jimwillgo...@msn.com; jerry_lr_chand...@me.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > >> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce’s 1880 “Algebra Of Logic” Chapter 3 • > >> Selection 4 > >> > >> Jim, List, > >> > >> No, I think that is incorrect. > >> > >> "A non-relative term may be called a term of singular reference." > >> > >> I don't think that leaves any room for A:B to be a term of singular > >> reference. > >> > >> The series singular, dual, plural here describes the arities 1, 2, ≥ 3. > >> > >> A non-relative term is also known as an absolute term. > >> > >> The letters A, B, C here refer to individuals, not classes. > >> > >> All the concepts and distinctions treated in this chapter, modulo the usual > >> variations in notation and terminology, are discussed in much greater > >> 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 > >> > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .