On 7/10/2018 9:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Is there any conceptual difference between defining a Proposition
as a medad Rheme vs. defining a Rheme as an incomplete Proposition?
When I interpret Peirce's writings on any topic in science,
math, or logic, I look at his sources and his successor
List, John:
These questions arose from JAS’s earlier posts; my earlier response was to
Jon's assertions about the nature of medads (nothings).
As to your current post, I hardly endorse your style of :
> When I interpret Peirce's writings on any topic in science,
> math, or logic, I look at his s
Jerry,
Broken link? JLRC
For Church's own discussion of intensions and extensions, see the
first 3 pages of his 1941 book:
Sorry, I had another reference to church.htm
http://jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
So this one is
http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/alonzo.htm
Are you altering the meaning
List, John:
The fresh link works fine. Thank You!
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 3:05 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
>
>> Are you altering the meaning of the texts of CSP?
>> Can you relate your existential graphs to 3.420-3.421?
>
> I'm interpreting what he wrote about EGs in terms of his
> algebraic nota
