On 1/27/2019 10:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: In other words, you simply choose to add a fourth division --identifiers--rather than widening one, as Peirce did.
No. There is a difference between adding some fundamentally new semantics and just giving a name to some syntactic variant. To be clear, I'll take Peirce's EGs for logic as fundamental. Then the algebraic notation is just a trivial variant with a different syntax, but equivalent semantics. Every language or logic uses some symbols to refer to entities in whatever universe of discourse (UoD) is the topic of discussion. The usual name for such symbols is *name*. Some entities in the UoD relate other entities to one another. Those entities are called *relations*. The names of relations are called *predicates*. Each predicate has one or more *pegs* which may be attached to the names of the entities that are related by the relation. A predicate in which every peg has an attached name is a *proposition*. An *argument* is a sequence of one or more propositions. That's all there is. The traditional names for the algebraic notation are different, but every statement of a proposition in the algebra can be translated to and from an equivalent statement in EGs. That translation does not introduce any new semantics. 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 .
