Kirsti, List,
It would be more accurate to say, and I'm sure it's what John meant,
that Peirce's explanation of logical connectives and quantifiers in
terms of a game between two players attempting to support or defeat
a proposition, respectively, is a precursor of many later versions
of game-theoretic semantics.
Regards,
Jon
On 10/30/2017 2:33 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
I attended Hintikka's lectures on game theory in early 1970's. No shade of Peirce. I found them boring. No discussion
invited nor wellcomed. Later on he got more mellow. And very interested on Peirce. - I greatly appreciate his latest
work, remarkable indeed. Especially from a representative of analytical philosophy, to which he remained true. - Still,
it hurts my heart and soul to read a suggestion that Peirce's endoporeutic may have or could have been a version of
Hintikka's game theoretical semantics. - Must have been a slip.
Is it so that Peirce never gave up his project on developing a genuinely triadic formal logic? Even though Part II,
existential graphs were the only part he completed in a satisfactory way (to his own mind)?
Thanks again,
Kirsti
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
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 .
