John, List: Here is an exact quotation of what Peirce actually says in R L376 (letter to Risteen) about the phemic sheet consisting of multiple "papers."
CSP: I provide my system with a *phemic sheet*, which is a surface upon which the utterer and interpreter will, by force of a voluntary and actually contracted habit, recognize that whatever is scribed upon it and is interpretable as an assertion is to be recognized as an assertion, although it may refer to a mere idea as its subject. If “snows” is scribed upon the Phemic Sheet, it asserts that in the universe to which a special understanding between utterer and interpreter has made the special part of the phemic sheet on which it is scribed to relate, it *sometime *does snow. For they two may conceive that the “phemic sheet” embraces many papers, so that one part of it is before the common attention at one time and another part at another, and that actual conventions between them equivalent to scribed graphs make some of those pieces relate to one subject and part to another. There is no mention of Delta, nor anything that would "deal with modals," which again is Peirce's only stated purpose for adding a Delta part to EGs. Instead, the different papers correspond to different *subjects* that attract "the common attention" of the utterer and interpreter at different times--i.e., different universes of discourse; not different times, aspects, or modalities of the *same *universe of discourse. There is also nothing about the new "red pencil" operation that Peirce describes in R 514 (as quoted below), and based on his specific example in that text--postulates in geometry--it likewise does not "deal with modals." Instead, it treats the edges of the sheet and the red line drawn a short distance inside them as two cuts, the latter nested within the former, such that what is being represented overall is a *conditional*--if the propositions in the margin (outer close) are true, then the graphs within the red line (inner close) are also true. In other words, the universe of discourse is made more explicit instead of being entirely taken for granted, and it might be strictly hypothetical--"merely asserted to be possible." In summary, it remains unclear to me what the content of your new article has to do with Delta graphs. How would the use of multiple "papers" and/or the "red pencil" operation facilitate implementing formal systems of modal logic with EGs? Which specific one, "invented in 2006," do you have in mind? Regards, Jon On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:30 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Jon, > > That's true: > > JAS> I am admittedly curious about the content of your new article. As you > know, there is only one place in Peirce's entire vast corpus of writings > where he mentions Delta. > > But note the following excerpt from R514, which also contains a rough > draft of the EGs in L231: > > "Since my paper of 1906, I have improved the [EG] system slightly (at > least), and the manner of exposition of it greatly, by first stating the > force of the different signs without going into their deeper significance > in the > Since my paper of 1906, I have improved the [EG] system slightly (at > least), and the manner of exposition of it greatly, by first stating the > force of the different signs without going into their deeper significance > in the least... > > One of my possibly slight improvements, is that I begin by drawing > (preferably with a red pencil), a line all round my sheet at a little > distance from the edge; and in the margin outside the red line, whatever is > scribed is merely asserted to be possible. Thus, if the subject were > geometry, I could write in that margin the postulates, and any pertinent > problems stated in the form of postulates such as, that "if on a plane, > there be circle with a ray cutting it, and two be marked [end of R514] > > That operation is the way L376 represents multiple parts of the phemic > sheet. And it is a way of saying the conditions for the nested graph to be > possible. That doesn't say much more. But that operation when combined > with a notation for first-order logic is a method for representing modality > in various logics in the late 20th and early 21st C. > > There are also other hints that suggest ways of extending FOL. They don't > prove that Peirce intended exactly the same kinds of applications. But it > shows that his ways of thinking could lead in promising directions. > Following is the abstract of the article I'm writing. > > Abstract. In December 1911, Peirce wrote an intriguing claim about > existential graphs: “I shall now have to add a Delta part in order to deal > with modals.” Although his unfinished draft does not specify the details, > it explains how an utterer and an interpreter may use Delta graphs in an > investigation. Further hints may be found in several manuscripts he wrote > in the previous six months. As another hint, the intended recipient of the > letter was Allan Risteen. When that letter is combined with information > about Risteen’s expertise and Peirce’s work on a proof of pragmaticism, it > suggests that the phemic sheet of a Delta graph consists of multiple > “papers”, each of which represents a different time, aspect, or modality of > some universe of discourse. Although Peirce did not specify the details of > Delta graphs, a combination of features mentioned in several 1911 > manuscripts would satisfy the hints about Delta graphs. The result would be > similar or perhaps equivalent to a logic for modality that was invented in > 2006. > > John > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *Sent*: 2/18/24 8:08 PM > *To*: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject*: [PEIRCE-L] Delta Existential Graphs (was The Proper Way in > Logic) > > John, List: > > JFS: I am now writing the article on Delta Graphs. That is an example > where Peirce was on solid ground with his deep understanding of logic and > mathematics. Next week, I'll send the abstract and preview of the new > article, which shows how Peirce anticipated a version of logic that was > developed in the 21st century (2006 to be exact). ( > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-02/msg00038.html) > > > JFS: I'm moving on to the the article on Delta graphs. I'll send a note > with a preview of that article later this week. ( > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-02/msg00104.html) > > > I am admittedly curious about the content of your new article. As you > know, there is only one place in Peirce's entire vast corpus of writings > where he mentions Delta. > > CSP: In this ["Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism," CP 4.530-572, > 1906] I made an attempt to make the syntax [of Existential Graphs] cover > Modals; but it has not satisfied me. The description was, on the whole, as > bad as it well could be, in great contrast to the one Dr. Carus rejected > [in 1897]. For although the system itself is marked by extreme simplicity, > the description fills 55 pages, and defines over a hundred technical terms > applying to it. The necessity for these was chiefly due to the lines called > "cuts" which simply appear in the present description as the boundaries of > shadings, or shaded parts of the sheet. The better exposition of 1903 > divided the system into three parts, distinguished as the Alpha, the Beta, > and the Gamma, parts; a division I shall here adhere to, although I shall > now have to add a *Delta *part in order to deal with modals. (R L376, R > 500:2-3, 1911 Dec 6) > > > For EGs as described in "the better exposition of 1903," modal logic is > implemented with *broken *cuts in Gamma. However, by the time Peirce > wrote this letter to Allan Douglas Risteen, he had abandoned cuts in > general, having replaced them with more iconic shading for negation. > Consequently, he needed a new way to "deal with modals," and this is the > sole purpose that he states for adding a Delta part. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
