I don't believe that there is any reason to distinguish Peirce's
Alpha graphs (propositional logic) from his Beta graphs (FOL).
In fact, Peirce himself (NEM 3:162-167) does not mention Alpha
or Beta. He uses exactly the same rules of inference for both.
I just reread it yesterday to see exactly
List, John:
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 3:31 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> I don't believe that there is any reason to distinguish Peirce's
> Alpha graphs (propositional logic) from his Beta graphs (FOL).
The objective of this post is to clarify a single technical point.
In your belief system, is the
On 7/13/2018 5:30 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
In your belief system, is the conceptualization of CSP’s "Beta graphs
(FOL)" identical in all logical respects with predicate logic?
As I said, by extensional criteria -- truth values and provable
theorems -- they are logically equivalent. That me
List, John:
Thank you for your expressions of your well-held beliefs about extension. But,
I find no relationships to the intensional logic of chemistry, biology or
medicine.
I am leaving for Europe shortly and do not have time to respond in detail.
Perhaps we can re-open the topic after I r
List, John:
Because many readers may find my posts difficult to comprehend, I am posting a
copy of an abstract that provides some philosophical insights into my beliefs.
The abstract is from 2009. The logical developments have continued during the
intervening years, now nearly a decade.
Chee
On 7/13/2018 7:19 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
Thank you for your expressions of your well-held beliefs
about extension [in EGs]. But, I find no relationships to
the intensional logic of chemistry, biology or medicine.
That is certainly true -- because, as Peirce pointed out,
formal logic is a
