To my mind CSP by iconical meant turning into geometrical proof. Not
only minute steps written in a very long row
according to a large set of rules given by tradition, but difficult or
even impossible to convey.
A possibility for an overview of logical structures, an overview to be
obtained by patient practicing.
I truly cannot understand what is meant by "more taraditional algebraic
notation". The birth of algebra came historically by in amalgamation of
Europian and Arabic traditions (al yabr). There were wars and invasions.
Spain, for example was taken over for a very long time.
The idea of zero, of marking out a place for nothing, was as good as
unthinkable in ancient Greece.
With zero came forth equation mark (=).
With equation mark, came forth algebra. Which is about equations.
The logical meaning of equations comes down to what we all the time do
when we believe we are just re-phrasing.
The mark = means a claim of essential equality. According to a long
tradition of well-studied, well established rules.
I apologize for butting in, again, in discussions I have not been
following but sporadically.
If I were to read all responses, and think, it would soona become my
main job.
No one would wish that! - So leaving you for a while, I wish you all the
best for the year now well on its way!
Kirsti
Aristotle never wrote down or explicated his syllogisms. As is often
presumed.
John F Sowa kirjoitti 8.1.2018 23:52:
I was rereading Peirce's 1885 article "On the Algebra of Logic",
in which he presented the algebraic notation that was adopted
by Schröder, Peano, Russell, Whitehead, and the rest of the world.
In the final paragraph of that article (csp85p202.jpg), he wrote
It is plain that by a more iconical and less logically analytical
notation this procedure might be much abridged...
That comment shows that he was already thinking about a graphical
notation as more iconic that the algebra -- and he expected its proofs
to be "much abridged" in comparison to proofs with the algebra.
In later writings, he wrote that EG proofs tended to be longer than
other methods. But he was comparing them to the more traditional
syllogisms, not to the algebraic notation (which few of his readers
at that time had seen).
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 .
