List, John: These questions arose from JAS’s earlier posts; my earlier response was to Jon's assertions about the nature of medads (nothings).
As to your current post, I hardly endorse your style of : > When I interpret Peirce's writings on any topic in science, > math, or logic, I look at his sources and his successors. This is essential practice for those seeking to understand the current meaning of his rhetoric. Unfortunately, this capability requires extreme diligent and curiosity and also the learning of relationships among multiple lexical fields. Slow work, to be sure. Thank you for your clear exposition of your views on your meanings for your existential graphs in relation to Church’s logic. Are you altering the meaning of the texts of CSP? Can you relate your existential graphs to 3.420-3.421? Unfortunately, I find this reading to be problematic because of the dyadic nature of the forces between electrical particles and hence the structure of material graphs, adjunctions, and biological sign relationships. (Consider the role of vision in detecting signs…) In my reading of the sentential logic of natural systems (quantum theory, the issues are materially categorical in nature. Cheers Jerry > On Jul 11, 2018, at 12:16 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 7/10/2018 9:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: >> Is there any conceptual difference between defining a Proposition as a medad >> Rheme vs. defining a Rheme as an incomplete Proposition? > > When I interpret Peirce's writings on any topic in science, > math, or logic, I look at his sources and his successors. > > Church's lambda calculus, for example, replaces parts of > an expression with variables instead of blanks. For example, > see slide 15 of my introduction to existential graphs: > http://jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf > > For that example, I took an excerpt from one of Peirce's EGs, > and its translation to English: > > "Aristotle is a Stagirite who teaches Alexander who conquers the world." > > By replacing two names with blanks, Peirce defines a dyadic relation: > > "___ is a Stagirite who teaches ___ who conquers the world." > > Note that I did not use the words 'rheme' or 'dicent sign' for > those graphs. For an introduction to EGs, I did not want to > confuse the students with those words. When I talk about EGs, > I say that an EG expresses the same proposition as the sentence, > and a sentence with N blanks expresses an N-adic relation. > > Church would replace those names with variables, and then put > the Greek letter λ and the list of variables in front: > > (λx,y) "x is a Stagirite who teaches y who conquers the world." > > Church would say that a sentence has an intension (a proposition) > and an extension (a truth value T or F in terms of some model). > > For Church's own discussion of intensions and extensions, see the > first 3 pages of his 1941 book: http://jfsowa.com/logic/church.htm > > The terms intension/extension were introduced by Hamilton. > Peirce used the older terms comprehension/extension, which I > believe are preferable. One reason is the confusion caused > by the pronunciation of 'intension' and 'intention'. > > As another example, I would cite the version of logic called > Common Logic (CL), CL supports *polyadic* functions and > relations, which may have a variable number of arguments > (zero or more). A relation with zero arguments is a > proposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Logic > > John > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
