Alex,

The words 'structure' and 'diagram' have multiple informal meanings in 
dictionaries of English. They also have multiple formal meanings in different 
theories of engineering, science, architecture, mathematics, ...

Alex> Diagram is just a picture. Rotate it on 180 grads or delete labels, 
nothing to think about structure :-)

>From ancient times to the present, the angles and sizes of many kinds of 
>diagrams have been very significant -- but there is usually some fixed ratio 
>of the size of the diagram to the structure it represents:  diagrams in 
>geometry, architectural plans, maps of the earth, moon, stars, and designs of 
>engineering systems (a car,  a pump,  or a violin, for example).

But I agree that some diagrams of linguistics or logic can be moved or rotated 
without changing the meaning.

But the beauty of Peirce's existential graphs is that they can be used for 
multiple purposes.  For representing logic, an EG can be mapped to and from a 
linear notation without any change in meaning.

But in 1911, he wanted to generalize his graphs to represent "stereoscopic 
moving images" or "moving pictures of thought".  For those purposes, he could 
generalize EGs to map pictures, even moving pictures, to graphs that have two 
kinds of information:  abstract logic that has no implicit physical information 
and representations of physical structures where the relative positions and 
angles are significant.

This is a very important reason why Peirce's diagrammatic reasoning is far more 
expressive than predicate calculus *and* LLMs.  I'm writing another article 
about Peirce's Delta Graphs, which appear to be going in that direction (just 
before Peirce had a serious accident and left the document incomplete).  But he 
left enough hints and requirements to indicate the direction he intended.  In 
2018, I published an article about generalizing existential graphs (see the 
references in the PDF I sent).

John

----------------------------------------
From: "Alex Shkotin" <alex.shko...@gmail.com>

Ravi, et al.,

For me there is a much more powerful idea and this is the idea of a structure. 
If a diagram can help to get or work with structure we use it.
Diagram is just a picture. Rotate it on 180 grads or delete labels, nothing to 
think about structure :-)
So "All necessary reasoning without exception is struturematic"
Consider this kind of structure: create a node and draw an arrow from it and at 
the end of it create another node, and so on ad infinitum.
Thinking the process is complete we get the structure for the natural numbers.
It can probably be drawn if it helps in its study.

Alex
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Reply via email to