Jon,
Thanks for that point. It solves the problem.
JAS: as I have already pointed out, Peirce himself stipulated
a very simple two-step procedure for converting between Entitative
and Existential Graphs in another manuscript.
CSP: Any entitative graph may be converted into the equivalent
existential graph by, first, enclosing each spot separately and
secondly enclosing the whole graph. (R 485:1)
Yes. You mentioned that in your note of June 27.
JAS
The diagram in CP 3.469 has been bothering me for while, and I
finally figured out why... he was simply illustrating an analogy
between the structure of a logical relative and the structure of
a chemical molecule.
I was also bothered by it. My first attempt was to translate
the EntG to an English sentence that could be translated directly
to the algebraic notation with Peirce's symbols or Peano's symbols.
That produced the following sentence in English:
For every x, every y, every z, either x is not John, or
y is not John, or z is not John, or x does not give y to z.
But everything I did with that sentence or its translation to an
algebraic formula left me with a missing negation. And I couldn't
find any way to get another negation into the formula.
Then I went back to read what Peirce wrote in CP and what Don R.
wrote in his book. Don quoted some excerpts from R 485, but he
did not quote that critical sentence. That sentence is key.
I admit that I made a mistake. And I thank you for correcting it.
That's the proper way to respond to a correction.
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 .
