Joseph, List: Ohhhh!
It appears that I misread your question and that my statement was slightly ambiguous. Let us distinguish two meaning. Without going into my personal philosophy of mathematics, I offer the following: 1. Roughly speaking, a mathematical equivalence relation is defined (described) by reflectivity and symmetry and transitivity, all three mathematical operations being necessary 2. Roughly speaking, a logical equivalency relation is not constrained by these mathematical terms. Roughly speaking, an example is the term “energy” as it is used physical, chemical and psychological systems of thought. At least, those are the sorts of meaning I was referring to when I wrote the email. I hope that this clarifies the issue. Underlying these emails is the unstated pre-suppositions that mathematical terminology is not ‘a priori’ compelling in all philosophical discourse. Over the years, I think that my posts show that, in the general sense, I do not find mathematical terminology to be compelling. Mathematical terminology can be highly compelling when it is in reference to other symbol systems (sign systems) where the perceptions of correspondence truths are evident. Thus when mathematical symbols are used in reference to physical units of measure, it is possible for the combined symbol systems to be not only compelling arguments about the natural relations among objects but also to show predictive relations for future observations / experiments. Cheers Jerry > On Mar 21, 2019, at 3:48 PM, joseph simpson <jjs0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jerry: > > It is a trivial question. > > You made the following statement: > > "Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning." > > I asked: > > "What is the precise mathematical meaning of "logical equivalence?"" > > This should not present any undue stress on your ability to answer. > > It does not appear that a useful 'precise mathematical meaning' of logical > equivalence would be a secret. > > I do not feel compelled to state the simple question again. > > Do you have the ability to provide a simple answer? > > Take care, have fun and be good to yourself, > > Joe > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:52 PM Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List, Joseph: > > Exactly what is an equivalence relation? > Is it possible for any two “instants” to be exactly the same as one another? > Are we dealing with reality or merely mathematical jargon? > > Joseph Simpson post is very strange… > Is he for or against the concept of “exact equivalence relationships"? > >> On Mar 21, 2019, at 2:37 PM, joseph simpson <jjs0...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jjs0...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Jerry: >> >> You wrote: >> >> "Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning. >> >> No such equivalence relationship is possible, linguistically, either >> logically, propositionally, syntactically or semantically." >> >> What is the precise mathematical meaning of "logical equivalence?" >> >> Take care, be good to yourself and have fun, >> >> Joe > > Thank you for your good wishes. > > You can relax and rest assured that I take excellent care of myself, I am > good to myself and I enjoy life. > > May I ask you to gather up you courage and express what you mean? > > If you lack the courage to participate in a public forum, then please > communicate with me in private. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:17 PM Jerry LR Chandler >> <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> List, John >>> On Mar 20, 2019, at 8:34 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net >>> <mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> wrote: >>> >>> JAS >>>> We simply prefer different but equally valid (and equally Peircean) >>>> analyses of a proposition--you throw everything possible into the >>>> predicate, leaving only an indicated subject; I throw everything >>>> possible into the subject, leaving only a continuous predicate. >>> >>> I agree that those two methods are logically equivalent. >>> >> >> Logically equivalent? >> Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning. >> >> No such equivalence relationship is possible, linguistically, either >> logically, propositionally, syntactically or semantically. >> >> In my view, this barely qualifies as informal jargon. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> -- >> Joe Simpson >> “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. >> Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. >> All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” >> George Bernard Shaw >> Git Hub link: >> https://github.com/jjs0sbw <https://github.com/jjs0sbw> >> Research Gate link: >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3 >> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3> >> YouTube Channel >> https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw <https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw> >> Web Site: >> https://systemsconcept.org/ <https://systemsconcept.org/> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, >> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu >> <mailto: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 >> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> . > > > > -- > Joe Simpson > “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. > Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. > All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” > George Bernard Shaw > Git Hub link: > https://github.com/jjs0sbw <https://github.com/jjs0sbw> > Research Gate link: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3 > <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3> > YouTube Channel > https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw <https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw> > Web Site: > https://systemsconcept.org/ <https://systemsconcept.org/>
----------------------------- 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 .
