OK. Thanks. Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 30.10.2017 20:45:
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
-----------------------------
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 .