Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Intuitionistic Logic

[Helmut Raulien]

Gary F., Jon, Jon, List

 

Now I think, that Peirce is right, and my temporality-hypothesis is not necessary: If the term "If A then (if A the B)" can be reduced to "if A then B", the latter can be expanded to the former as well. So "Every unicorn is pink" can be said as "for every unicorn counts, that every unicorn is pink", and that Santa Claus is my uncle, and that all cats are dogs, because, as there is no unicorn, the term says: "For no unicorn it counts, that every unicorn is pink, all wheels are square, and Jah Pastafa created the universe". Of course this is true, because there is no unicorn for whom it could count. Logic gets on nerves. Let´s hope, they don´t crispr a unicorn.

 

Best

Helmut

 

 

23. Mai 2021 um 18:13 Uhr
 g...@gnusystems.ca
wrote:

Helmut, my book has a lot to say about relations between time and logic, but probably the most relevant to your question is here: Objecting and Realizing (TS ·12) (gnusystems.ca) . Actually there’s more of Peirce than of me in it, but I hope there’s no objection to that.

 

Gary f.

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On Behalf Of Helmut Raulien
Sent: 23-May-21 11:50
 

Gary F., List

 

Yes, but I don´t know if I am right. It would mean, that temporality is something more than causality: Mere causality in the present would be symbolized with another implication: "If A then (if A then B)". But this term reduces to "if A Then B", when you write it with Boolean "not"s  or an EG. But only if you separate the past (the premiss) from the present, you get the contradiction "A and not A" in it (in the past). So yes, it is a disagreement with

‘the form of the relation of two instants of time, or what is the same thing as the relation between a logical antecedent and consequent.’

because it is the hypothesis, that it is not the same thing. But I don´t feel competent of disagreeing, so it is not my well-fermented opinion, but rather a question: Might it be like that, and what do you think?

Best

 

Helmut

 

 

23. Mai 2021 um 13:06 Uhr
g...@gnusystems.ca
wrote:

Helmut, on this point you seem to disagree with Peirce about logical relations. Peirce in 1880 (W4:170) identified illation as the basic or ‘primitive’ logical relation, and in his 1906 ‘PAP’ (MS 293) he identified it with ‘the form of the relation of two instants of time, or what is the same thing as the relation between a logical antecedent and consequent.’

Gary f.

 

From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> On Behalf Of Helmut Raulien
Sent: 22-May-21 18:13
 

Supplement: The logical connection between premiss and rule cannot be symbolized with logical notation including EGs. It is a temporal connection, a relation between past and present. Logic notation merely notes the status of the present. Implication implies this temporal relation, and "not (A and not B)" doesn´t. So both are different, but this difference doesn´t show in logical notation.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.