Cecile, Edwina, List:
The question asked was whether Peirce ever represented a *Sign* as a Y. CP
4.309-310 and 4.317 refer only to a (mathematical) "triad," while CP
1.346-347 is about Existential Graphs with three tails--both of which are
depictions of a *relation*. As I (and others) have point
Cecile, list:
Yes, Peirce represented the triadic sign as a Y; [also called the
triple fork] See his discussion in 1.346 where he outlines a 'node
connecting three lines of identity' and the graph and its extensions
in 1.347. He refers to this latter as having 'generative poten
Dear Peirce List member,
I have been asked whether the representation of a triadic sign as a Y
(or rather three branches connected in the middle of the figure and
whose other ends are separated by equal spaces) appeared in Peirce's
work. I can't seem to find it in the Collected Papers (there's
John S., List:
>From a Peircean standpoint, if mathematics is the science of possibility
(1ns) and physics is the science of actuality (2ns), what is the science of
regularity or habit (3ns)? Or is 3ns perhaps implicit in *any *notion of
science that includes the study of *patterns *and *processe
John, Edwina, List,
As a response to Quine and Goodman's restrictive aphorism concerning
quantifiers and bound variables, one could say: we assert something is real if
it is the value of a modal operator as expressed in our best positive
theoretical explanations and in our common sense unders
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
An extremely interesting post. Many thanks.
What can I say other than that - I agree with your outline and
suggestions to replace 'universal' with 'mathematical'.
That change also inse
Edwina and Mike,
I'll reply to your notes in the thread on virtual reality.
But first, I'm forwarding the note copied below, which I sent
to Ontolog Forum on Saturday.
Quine's Dictum: To be is to be the value of a quantified variable.
That principle led Quine, Goodman, and others to limit ontol
