Jim, List: On Feb 27, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote: My comments are given below. > Jerry, list > > Suppose that; > > +H : O : -H ------> +H v O v -H > > would you say, > 1) ':' is uninterpreted > 2) ':' is uninterpretable > 3) association fails so that there should be pairing '()' around the right > disjunct > 4) ':' means "and" and so (+H & 0 & -H) would be ok. > 5) parsimony suggests that '()' should be around the left conjunct too > > If #2, is there a an index or measurement that one could start with. i did > notice that you brought up "ontological evidence." > (I began to draw some lengths and angles to get a feel for how you could > shorten the length of a bond. i doubt that this would be where a chemist > would begin in order to explain anything resembling an "ontological break" > through electrolysis. But I felt I needed to begin somewhere in the vicinity > of the bond. > Jim W > <IMG_0204.JPG> > ----------------------------- > First, my three theorems for the logic of chemistry as posted: -------- "In chemistry today, 1. All nouns are referenced to the table of elements, to numbers, and to ontological physical evidence/measurements. 2. All formal names of chemical objects (hydrogen oxide) are referenced to the component atoms from which they are assembled. 3. All compound names refer to oxidation states of the component atoms. Thus chemical names are constructed by application of generally accepted rules (of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.) ----------
Jim supposes that: > +H : O : -H ------> +H v O v -H Water, as a term without any modifiers, is, within the reference of the table of elements (TOE), is a form of matter of common experience. It is treated as a whole composed from two components of the TOE. The two SYMBOLS for hydrogen are chemically and hence logically equivalent. Thus, the supposition, as indicated by +H ........... -H, is not a valid chemical representation of water as a covalent structure. Within the context of the statement, I do not know how to interpret the "arrow" in your notation and chemical notation. The source of tension is simple. An arrow in chemical notation is only vaguely related to the notion of a mapping in topology. It signifies a change of form of the nouns under certain restrictions connected to the implications of the three theorems and physical inferences from them. In simple informal terms, an arrow from a subset of TOE to a molecule creates new relations. I presume that your notation in this sentence does NOT imply a change of physical relations? True? An informal chemical representation would be one of two forms: H-O-H indicating the order of the connections within the collection of atoms composing the identity of the name. H:O:H such that the colon, indicating a PAIR of electrons, one from each atom, binding each pair atoms together. The first form is widely used in introductory chemistry in the USA. The second form is widely used in more technical works. The meaning of colon represents the valence. Each hydrogen has valence 1. The oxygen has valence two. This is, at its roots, a principle of electro-neutrality. Note that the colon implicitly represents four electrical objects, two of each polarity, two electrons and two nuclei. I have sought to describe the symbolism in the terms of the axioms. Did I succeed? If not, probe again. In an earlier message you address the question of identity. "But, are you saying that in all cases a kind of compound can be factored (per #3) to its initial oxidation states without loss of identity? I noticed that if you lose an electron, you might lose an atom or if the standard mass falls below a certain weight, you could lose your "ontological" identity." Your comment raises an extremely important facet of chemical logic, notation and the theorems. Some relevant comments. Every chemical element in the TOE is taken to be an electro-neutral object. The symbol for any element represents its identity as: 1. Rhetoric term - name 2. Electrons and nucleus as measurable physical attributes of electricity and hence as parts of the whole. 3. Counts of the integer numbers corresponding to the positional order in the indexing TOE. Thus, these three representations of identity are triadic with respect to meaning. BTW, note the absence of geometric terms in establishing the raw identity of a chemical object. The identity of a molecule is the arithmetic sum of the parts of the collection of atoms, arranged in a particular electrical order, as in the water molecule. No more time this evening. Hope this is helpful. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
