date:20190301

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

2019-03-01 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Helmut, List:

Formal deductive logic is indifferent to temporality.  Instead, that aspect
is included in whatever propositions correspond to A and B.  In other
words, "there will be" or "there has been" is part of B.

For example, let A = "there is thunder," B1 = "there will be lightning,"
and B2 = "there has been lightning."  "If A then B1" is false, or at least
not *necessarily *true; but "if A then B2" is true, because thunder is *always
*preceded by lightning--in fact, it is lightning that *causes *thunder.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:24 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

>  Supplement: Might it be, that there is something missing in formal logic,
> that is:
> "If A then B" can mean two different things: 1.: "If A then there will be
> B" (Consequence), or: "If A then there has been B" (Conclusion)??
> I have the hunch, that, if logic wants to explain reality, it must
> distinguish between consequence and conclusion, but it doesnt. Is that so?
> Best!
> Thank you, Jon! It is interesting, that "If not A then not B" is
> equivalent to "if B then A". What rings a bell to me, is, that usually, as
> I was thinking, an "if-then" affair is causality, and causality usually
> goes along with time. But in this case, the causality between A and B, by
> this obvious-if-you-know-it equivalency, is reversed, although time cannot
> be reversed!
> Confused, but best-wishing,
> Helmut
> 01. März 2019 um 20:27 Uhr
>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> *wrote:*
> Helmut, List:
>
> "If not A then not B" is equivalent to "if B then A" or "not (B and not
> A)."  If A is true and B is false, then this proposition is true.  However,
> I do not believe that it is an accurate translation of "B derives from A."
> Validity in deductive logic is precisely the requirement that a false
> conclusion can *never *be derived from true premisses.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:51 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
>> Supplement: I mean, I need some time and post later something when I will
>> have occupied myself with the EGs, but you may answer now! Best!
>> Edwina, Jon, list,
>>
>> Thank you! I must think about the whole thing some time, and answer
>> later. I e.g. guess, that it (derivation) is not "if A then B", but "if not
>> A then not B", which means, that there may be A and not B. Like (in the
>> example) there may be a society without xenophobia, though crystals do
>> exist
>>
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>> 01. März 2019 um 15:16 Uhr
>> "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
>> Helmut, List:
>>
>> As Peirce often noted, and as the corresponding Existential Graph
>> visually illustrates, "if A then B" is equivalent to "not (A and not B)."
>> "A is true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then
>> B)" is false.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon S.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:21 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>>
>>> Jon,
>>> I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false", "C=(if A then B)", "if C then
>>> B".
>>>
>>> Is C false, because something true cannot have something false for
>>> consequence?
>>>
>>> Or may C be true, because a falsity is a false connection of truths,
>>> without which it could not exist?
>>>
>>> Best, Helmut
>>>  28. Februar 2019 um 17:58 Uhr
>>>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
>>>
>>> Helmut:
>>>
>>> By "B is a fault," do you mean "B is false"?  By "B derives from A," do
>>> you mean "if A then B"?  By "C is a subset of B," do you mean "if C then B"?
>>>
>>> If these are accurate translations, and A is true but B is false, then
>>> there is no paradox--it is false that B derives from A; i.e., C is false.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Helmut Raulien 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Supplement: I have a mathematical question based on the example of this
 discussion:
 If A is true, and B is a fault, and C is an assumption that B derives
 from A, and C is a subset of B,
 is it then so, that B derives from A?
 And is C true or a fault, or is this question a paradox?
 Best,
 Helmut

>>>

-
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 .

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

2019-03-01 Thread Helmut Raulien

 
 

Supplement: Might it be, that there is something missing in formal logic, that is:

"If A then B" can mean two different things: 1.: "If A then there will be B" (Consequence), or: "If A then there has been B" (Conclusion)??

I have the hunch, that, if logic wants to explain reality, it must distinguish between consequence and conclusion, but it doesnt. Is that so?

Best!




Thank you, Jon! It is interesting, that "If not A then not B" is equivalent to "if B then A". What rings a bell to me, is, that usually, as I was thinking, an "if-then" affair is causality, and causality usually goes along with time. But in this case, the causality between A and B, by this obvious-if-you-know-it equivalency, is reversed, although time cannot be reversed! 

Confused, but best-wishing,

Helmut

 

01. März 2019 um 20:27 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
wrote:



Helmut, List:

 
"If not A then not B" is equivalent to "if B then A" or "not (B and not A)."  If A is true and B is false, then this proposition is true.  However, I do not believe that it is an accurate translation of "B derives from A."  Validity in deductive logic is precisely the requirement that a false conclusion can never be derived from true premisses.

 

Regards,

 

Jon S.






 








On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:51 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:






Supplement: I mean, I need some time and post later something when I will have occupied myself with the EGs, but you may answer now! Best!




Edwina, Jon, list,

 

Thank you! I must think about the whole thing some time, and answer later. I e.g. guess, that it (derivation) is not "if A then B", but "if not A then not B", which means, that there may be A and not B. Like (in the example) there may be a society without xenophobia, though crystals do exist

 

Best,

Helmut



01. März 2019 um 15:16 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" 



Helmut, List:
 

As Peirce often noted, and as the corresponding Existential Graph visually illustrates, "if A then B" is equivalent to "not (A and not B)."  "A is true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then B)" is false.

 

Regards,

 

Jon S.

 


On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:21 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Jon,

I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false", "C=(if A then B)", "if C then B".

 


Is C false, because something true cannot have something false for consequence?

 

Or may C be true, because a falsity is a false connection of truths, without which it could not exist?

 

Best, Helmut


 28. Februar 2019 um 17:58 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 



Helmut:

 

By "B is a fault," do you mean "B is false"?  By "B derives from A," do you mean "if A then B"?  By "C is a subset of B," do you mean "if C then B"?

 

If these are accurate translations, and A is true but B is false, then there is no paradox--it is false that B derives from A; i.e., C is false.

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt






 


On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:






Supplement: I have a mathematical question based on the example of this discussion:

If A is true, and B is a fault, and C is an assumption that B derives from A, and C is a subset of B,

is it then so, that B derives from A?

And is C true or a fault, or is this question a paradox?

Best,

Helmut





























- 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 .




- 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 .




-
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 .

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

2019-03-01 Thread Helmut Raulien


Thank you, Jon! It is interesting, that "If not A then not B" is equivalent to "if B then A". What rings a bell to me, is, that usually, as I was thinking, an "if-then" affair is causality, and causality usually goes along with time. But in this case, the causality between A and B, by this obvious-if-you-know-it equivalency, is reversed, although time cannot be reversed! 

Confused, but best-wishing,

Helmut

 

01. März 2019 um 20:27 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
wrote:



Helmut, List:

 
"If not A then not B" is equivalent to "if B then A" or "not (B and not A)."  If A is true and B is false, then this proposition is true.  However, I do not believe that it is an accurate translation of "B derives from A."  Validity in deductive logic is precisely the requirement that a false conclusion can never be derived from true premisses.

 

Regards,

 

Jon S.






 








On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:51 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:






Supplement: I mean, I need some time and post later something when I will have occupied myself with the EGs, but you may answer now! Best!




Edwina, Jon, list,

 

Thank you! I must think about the whole thing some time, and answer later. I e.g. guess, that it (derivation) is not "if A then B", but "if not A then not B", which means, that there may be A and not B. Like (in the example) there may be a society without xenophobia, though crystals do exist

 

Best,

Helmut



01. März 2019 um 15:16 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" 



Helmut, List:
 

As Peirce often noted, and as the corresponding Existential Graph visually illustrates, "if A then B" is equivalent to "not (A and not B)."  "A is true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then B)" is false.

 

Regards,

 

Jon S.

 


On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:21 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Jon,

I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false", "C=(if A then B)", "if C then B".

 


Is C false, because something true cannot have something false for consequence?

 

Or may C be true, because a falsity is a false connection of truths, without which it could not exist?

 

Best, Helmut


 28. Februar 2019 um 17:58 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 



Helmut:

 

By "B is a fault," do you mean "B is false"?  By "B derives from A," do you mean "if A then B"?  By "C is a subset of B," do you mean "if C then B"?

 

If these are accurate translations, and A is true but B is false, then there is no paradox--it is false that B derives from A; i.e., C is false.

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt






 


On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:






Supplement: I have a mathematical question based on the example of this discussion:

If A is true, and B is a fault, and C is an assumption that B derives from A, and C is a subset of B,

is it then so, that B derives from A?

And is C true or a fault, or is this question a paradox?

Best,

Helmut





























- 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 .




-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeking Manuscript # R-1041

2019-03-01 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Jerry C., List:

Most (if not all) of the manuscripts (but not letters) listed in the Robin
catalog are available online in the Digital Peirce Archive (
https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/home.php).  The pages are
displayed in reverse order, so one must start at the end and work one's way
up from there.

Here is a direct link to R 1041--
https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/search.php?search=%21collection1083
.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:50 PM Jerry LR Chandler 
wrote:

> List:
>
> The Harvard site and the Commens dictionary list the following manuscript:
>
> Id:
> MS [R] 1041
> Year:
> 1905
> Description:
> *Robin Catalogue:*
> A. MS., n.p., [1905], pp. 1-26, with 6 pp. of variants.
> CSP sets out to discuss “the mode of composition of ideas,” developing an
> analogy between simple ideas and chemical elements.
> Keywords:
> Valency , Chemistry
> , Indecomposable Idea
> , Jöns Jacob
> Berzelius
> , Edward
> Frankland ,
> Continuum , Conditional
> Being , Real
> , Reality
> , Pragmatism
> , Elasticity
> 
>
> The title suggests an intimate link between grammar, chemical nouns
> (subjects) and graph theory.
>
> Does  anyone know if this manuscript is available online?
> Or, have an electronic file of it?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Cheers
>

-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Seeking Manuscript # R-1041

2019-03-01 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

List:

The Harvard site and the Commens dictionary list the following manuscript:

Id: 
MS [R] 1041
Year: 
1905
Description: 
Robin Catalogue:
A. MS., n.p., [1905], pp. 1-26, with 6 pp. of variants.
CSP sets out to discuss “the mode of composition of ideas,” developing an 
analogy between simple ideas and chemical elements.
Keywords: 
Valency , Chemistry 
, Indecomposable Idea 
, Jöns Jacob 
Berzelius , 
Edward Frankland , 
Continuum , Conditional 
Being , Real 
, Reality 
, Pragmatism 
, Elasticity 


The title suggests an intimate link between grammar, chemical nouns (subjects) 
and graph theory.

Does  anyone know if this manuscript is available online?
Or, have an electronic file of it?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Cheers
-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Analyzing Propositions (was EGs and Phaneroscopy)

2019-03-01 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

John, List:

I sincerely appreciate the more characteristic tone of your latest post,
and hope that we can both maintain it going forward.

JFS:  Before going further, note that my explanation is consistent with the
three footnotes by Hartshorne and Weiss to CP 4.538.


Yes, but as I have indicated before, I believe those footnotes to be
*incorrect*.  The CP editors were not infallible, and their interpretive
comments are not authoritative.  Peirce stated explicitly that "Delome" is
synonymous with "Argument," but made no such remarks about "Seme" or
"Pheme" with respect to "Rheme" or "Dicisign," respectively.  As you said
yourself, "Peirce was very precise in what he wrote"--if he had considered
those sets of terms to be equivalent, he surely would have simply continued
using the latter pair; in fact, his ethics of terminology would have *required
*this.

CSP:  Having thus given some idea of the nature of the reasons which weigh
with me, I proceed to state the rules which I find to be binding upon me in
this field ...
Sixth, for philosophical conceptions which vary by a hair's breadth from
those for which suitable terms exist, to invent terms with a due regard for
the usages of philosophical terminology and those of the English language,
but yet with a distinctly technical appearance ... Having once introduced a
symbol, to consider myself almost as much bound by it as if it had been
introduced by somebody else; and after others have accepted it, to consider
myself more bound to it than anybody else.
Seventh, to regard it as needful to introduce new systems of expression
when new connections of importance between conceptions come to be made out,
or when such systems can, in any way, positively subserve the purposes of
philosophical study. (CP 2.225-226, EP 2:266; 1903)


Peirce considered himself "bound to" his own neologisms as long as the
corresponding conceptions remained the same, but he also considered new
terminology *necessary *once those conceptions varied, even if only "by a
hair's breadth"; all the more so when it would bring out "new connections
of importance between conceptions" or otherwise "subserve the purposes of
philosophical study."  Hence we can infer that he must have had *very
specific reasons* for introducing "Seme" and "Pheme," rather than sticking
with "Rheme" and "Dicisign."  I am by no means breaking new ground here;
for example, Francesco Bellucci takes the same position in *Peirce's
Speculative Grammar:  Logic as Semiotics*.

FB:  New concepts require new names, and Peirce was the last of men to be
indifferent to this.  Indeed, it is during the spring of 1906 that he must
have come to the conclusion that his new findings in speech act theory
necessitated a new grammatical terminology ... A "pheme" is not simply a
dicisign.  A dicisign is something that has the structure of a proposition,
and that can be used to make an assertion.  A pheme is, *more generally*,
something that has the structure of a proposition and that can be used to
perform several speech acts ... the grammatical notion of dicisign is
further enlarged to that of pheme by including non-assertoric dicisigns.
Given the taxonomic investigations I have documented above, this should
come as no surprise.  To signalize the further extension, Peirce re-names
the locutionary trichotomy  into . (pp. 315-316)


As I have explained previously, I think that using "Proposition," rather
than "Dicisign" or "Pheme," is warranted by Peirce's statement elsewhere
that "One and the same proposition may be affirmed, denied, judged,
doubted, inwardly inquired into, put as a question, wished, asked for,
effectively commanded, taught, or merely expressed, and does not thereby
become a different proposition" (EP 2:312; 1904).  Bellucci does not
comment directly on "Seme" vs. "Rheme," but while reviewing our recent List
exchanges (as you requested), I came across this observation in your post
 from a
few weeks ago with the subject line, "A seme is a predicate or a
quasi-predicate."

JFS:  In 1903, Peirce defined the word 'seme' in a way that is inconsistent
with what he wrote in 1906:

CSP:  An *Index*, or *Seme* (*σημα*), is a Representamen whose
Representative character consists in its being an individual Second. (EP
2:274)


Compare this with the 1906 definition.


CSP:  By a *Seme*, I shall mean anything which serves for any purpose as a
substitute for an object of which it is, in some sense, a representative or
Sign. (CP 4.538)


While the later notion of "Seme" is certainly not *synonymous* with
"Index," it is not *incompatible* with it, either--a Seme *can* be Index,
and it can also be an Icon or a Symbol.  As I have pointed out before, that
is the primary sense in which "Seme" is "much widened" relative to the more
familiar "Term," which only applies to Symbols.  After all, for Peirce the
Logical *Breadth* of a Sign corresponds to the *Objects* that it denotes,
and "S

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

2019-03-01 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Helmut, List:

"If not A then not B" is equivalent to "if B then A" or "not (B and not
A)."  If A is true and B is false, then this proposition is true.  However,
I do not believe that it is an accurate translation of "B derives from A."
Validity in deductive logic is precisely the requirement that a false
conclusion can *never *be derived from true premisses.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:51 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Supplement: I mean, I need some time and post later something when I will
> have occupied myself with the EGs, but you may answer now! Best!
> Edwina, Jon, list,
>
> Thank you! I must think about the whole thing some time, and answer later.
> I e.g. guess, that it (derivation) is not "if A then B", but "if not A then
> not B", which means, that there may be A and not B. Like (in the example)
> there may be a society without xenophobia, though crystals do exist
>
> Best,
> Helmut
> 01. März 2019 um 15:16 Uhr
> "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
> Helmut, List:
>
> As Peirce often noted, and as the corresponding Existential Graph visually
> illustrates, "if A then B" is equivalent to "not (A and not B)."  "A is
> true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then B)"
> is false.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:21 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
>> Jon,
>> I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false", "C=(if A then B)", "if C then
>> B".
>>
>> Is C false, because something true cannot have something false for
>> consequence?
>>
>> Or may C be true, because a falsity is a false connection of truths,
>> without which it could not exist?
>>
>> Best, Helmut
>>  28. Februar 2019 um 17:58 Uhr
>>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
>>
>> Helmut:
>>
>> By "B is a fault," do you mean "B is false"?  By "B derives from A," do
>> you mean "if A then B"?  By "C is a subset of B," do you mean "if C then B"?
>>
>> If these are accurate translations, and A is true but B is false, then
>> there is no paradox--it is false that B derives from A; i.e., C is false.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>>
>>> Supplement: I have a mathematical question based on the example of this
>>> discussion:
>>> If A is true, and B is a fault, and C is an assumption that B derives
>>> from A, and C is a subset of B,
>>> is it then so, that B derives from A?
>>> And is C true or a fault, or is this question a paradox?
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>

-
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 .

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

2019-03-01 Thread Helmut Raulien

 
 

Supplement: I mean, I need some time and post later something when I will have occupied myself with the EGs, but you may answer now! Best!




Edwina, Jon, list,

 

Thank you! I must think about the whole thing some time, and answer later. I e.g. guess, that it (derivation) is not "if A then B", but "if not A then not B", which means, that there may be A and not B. Like (in the example) there may be a society without xenophobia, though crystals do exist

 

Best,

Helmut

 

01. März 2019 um 15:16 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 



Helmut, List:
 

As Peirce often noted, and as the corresponding Existential Graph visually illustrates, "if A then B" is equivalent to "not (A and not B)."  "A is true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then B)" is false.

 

Regards,

 

Jon S.

 


On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:21 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Jon,

I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false", "C=(if A then B)", "if C then B".

 


Is C false, because something true cannot have something false for consequence?

 

Or may C be true, because a falsity is a false connection of truths, without which it could not exist?

 

Best, Helmut


 28. Februar 2019 um 17:58 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 



Helmut:

 

By "B is a fault," do you mean "B is false"?  By "B derives from A," do you mean "if A then B"?  By "C is a subset of B," do you mean "if C then B"?

 

If these are accurate translations, and A is true but B is false, then there is no paradox--it is false that B derives from A; i.e., C is false.

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt






 


On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:






Supplement: I have a mathematical question based on the example of this discussion:

If A is true, and B is a fault, and C is an assumption that B derives from A, and C is a subset of B,

is it then so, that B derives from A?

And is C true or a fault, or is this question a paradox?

Best,

Helmut
















- 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 .




- 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 .




-
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 .

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

2019-03-01 Thread Helmut Raulien


Edwina, Jon, list,

 

Thank you! I must think about the whole thing some time, and answer later. I e.g. guess, that it (derivation) is not "if A then B", but "if not A then not B", which means, that there may be A and not B. Like (in the example) there may be a society without xenophobia, though crystals do exist

 

Best,

Helmut

 

01. März 2019 um 15:16 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 



Helmut, List:
 

As Peirce often noted, and as the corresponding Existential Graph visually illustrates, "if A then B" is equivalent to "not (A and not B)."  "A is true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then B)" is false.

 

Regards,

 

Jon S.

 


On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:21 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Jon,

I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false", "C=(if A then B)", "if C then B".

 


Is C false, because something true cannot have something false for consequence?

 

Or may C be true, because a falsity is a false connection of truths, without which it could not exist?

 

Best, Helmut


 28. Februar 2019 um 17:58 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 



Helmut:

 

By "B is a fault," do you mean "B is false"?  By "B derives from A," do you mean "if A then B"?  By "C is a subset of B," do you mean "if C then B"?

 

If these are accurate translations, and A is true but B is false, then there is no paradox--it is false that B derives from A; i.e., C is false.

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt






 


On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:






Supplement: I have a mathematical question based on the example of this discussion:

If A is true, and B is a fault, and C is an assumption that B derives from A, and C is a subset of B,

is it then so, that B derives from A?

And is C true or a fault, or is this question a paradox?

Best,

Helmut
















- 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 .




-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] C. S. Peirce web site at Harvard

2019-03-01 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

John, List:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  I will seriously consider
donating to the digitization effort.  I have made a couple of contributions
to the Peirce Edition Project in the past, but am frustrated by its ongoing
lack of progress in actually preparing and publishing additional volumes of
the Writings; those have been stuck at 1892 for almost ten years now.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:50 PM John F Sowa  wrote:

> I came across a new web site at Harvard that is dedicated
> to the Peirce papers and related issues:
> https://library.harvard.edu/collections/charles-s-peirce-papers
>
> You can explore the collections of "More than 100,000 pages of
> working notes and drafts by the influential philosopher and scientist."
>
> And anyone who has any extra cash lying around can donate to a fund
> for digitizing:  "a group of Peirce scholars has initiated an effort
> to digitize the important late manuscripts, some 50,000 pages."
>
> 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 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 .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

2019-03-01 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Helmut, List:

As Peirce often noted, and as the corresponding Existential Graph visually
illustrates, "if A then B" is equivalent to "not (A and not B)."  "A is
true and B is false" is equivalent to (A and not B); so "C=(if A then B)"
is false.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:21 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Jon,
> I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false", "C=(if A then B)", "if C then
> B".
>
> Is C false, because something true cannot have something false for
> consequence?
>
> Or may C be true, because a falsity is a false connection of truths,
> without which it could not exist?
>
> Best, Helmut
>  28. Februar 2019 um 17:58 Uhr
>  "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
>
> Helmut:
>
> By "B is a fault," do you mean "B is false"?  By "B derives from A," do
> you mean "if A then B"?  By "C is a subset of B," do you mean "if C then B"?
>
> If these are accurate translations, and A is true but B is false, then
> there is no paradox--it is false that B derives from A; i.e., C is false.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
>> Supplement: I have a mathematical question based on the example of this
>> discussion:
>> If A is true, and B is a fault, and C is an assumption that B derives
>> from A, and C is a subset of B,
>> is it then so, that B derives from A?
>> And is C true or a fault, or is this question a paradox?
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>>
>

-
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 .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

2019-03-01 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

Helmut - is isn't a mathematical question but a logical question.
Look up: 'Logica Ponens and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

As an example of your If A then B, try: 'If it rains my car is wet."
But my car is wet [B] is false since my car is in the garage.

Edwina
 On Fri 01/03/19  2:21 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Jon, I think I mean: "A is true", "B is false", "C=(if A then B)",
"if C then B".Is C false, because something true cannot have
something false for consequence?   Or may C be true, because a
falsity is a false connection of truths, without which it could not
exist?   Best, Helmut   28. Februar 2019 um 17:58 Uhr
  "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 Helmut:   By "B is a fault," do you mean "B is false"?  By "B
derives from A," do you mean "if A then B"?  By "C is a subset of B,"
do you mean "if C then B"?   If these are accurate translations, and A
is true but B is false, then there is no paradox--it is false that B
derives from A; i.e., C is false.   Regards,Jon Alan Schmidt
- Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher,
Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]  On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:06
AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:  Supplement: I have a mathematical
question based on the example of this discussion: If A is true, and B
is a fault, and C is an assumption that B derives from A, and C is a
subset of B, is it then so, that B derives from A? And is C true or a
fault, or is this question a paradox? Best, Helmut   
- 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 [4] .


Links:
--
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm

-
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 .

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeking Manuscript # R-1041

[PEIRCE-L] Seeking Manuscript # R-1041

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Analyzing Propositions (was EGs and Phaneroscopy)

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

Re: [PEIRCE-L] C. S. Peirce web site at Harvard

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mathematical question WAS Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem

12 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information