Jerry, list: The technical report, "Applied Natural Language Relationships," is available on Research Gate at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332594223_Applied_Natural_Language_Relationships There are a number ideas addressed in this paper, including higher-order logic and the logical properties associated with natural language relationships (logical predicates.) For example, the natural language relationship, "gives" could take different forms depending on the context. Person A gives a zebra (Z) to person B. In this case "gives" is: irreflexive, asymmetric and intransitive. The natural language relationship "gives", may be isomorphically represented in three language forms; 1) prose, structured graphics and mathematics. The isomorphic nature of the three language forms provides a rich communication environment which supports more robust, effective and comprehensive communication mechanisms. Take care, be good to yourself and have fun, Joe On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:11 PM joseph simpson <jjs0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry, List: > > Version 2.0 of the Augmented Model-Exchange Isomorphism (AMEI 2.0) is > available at: > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332186969_Augmented_Model-Exchange_Isomorphism_v20 > > A new scope concept has been added to this version of the document. > > Another technical report, "Applied Natural Language Relationships," is in > work and is scheduled to be available around the first of May, 2019. > > It should be clear that some of the logical groupings in the AMEI do not > produce valid logical outcomes. All 27 groups are addressed for > completeness. > > Operational procedures, applied during system analysis, are discussed in > the "Applied Natural Language Relationships" report. A quick look at a > simple 'logical fix' for an apparent logical problem is associated with the > natural language relationship, 'part-of.' Some individuals assign a > logical group of irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive to the 'part-of' > natural language relationship. Other individuals assign a logical group of > reflexive, asymmetric and transitive to the 'part-of' natural language > relationship. Given an asymmetric and transitive relationship, it can be > shown that the only acceptable reflexive (logical) property is irreflexive. > > The AMEI provides a complete framework to support the evaluation of these > types of logical issues. In the case of system structural analysis, the > reflexive property is not important because it applies to only one object. > System structure depends on the relationship between two or more objects. > Therefore, either the irreflexive property or the reflexive property will > generate the same system structure. In practice the irreflexive property > is used to determine the system structure. If, once the system structure > is determined, the reflexive property becomes important in other > mathematical calculations, then the identity matrix may be added to the > binary matrix that represents the system structure. > > The combination of prose, structured graphics, logic and mathematics > provides a rich collection of methods, operations and idioms to support the > effective practice of system analysis and data communication. > > More methods will be addressed in the Applied Natural Language > Relationships paper. > > Take care, be good to yourself and have fun, > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:26 PM Jerry LR Chandler < > jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > >> (List, This a both a correction of typos and an significant extension of >> the original post. As I continue to work on the Bedrock paper and the >> plethora of implications for modern scientific re-interpretations of CSP >> deep encoding of the semiotics of the chemical sciences, I plan to post >> sporadically, other deductions from modern scientific bedrocks.) >> >> On Mar 2, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> "But this is not what I mean, nor what is generally meant, by a >> collection of absolutely independent members. What I mean by that >> expression is that every member is distinguished from every other by >> possessing some one or another elementary and definite non-relative >> character which that other does not possess" Thanks Gary. Thus are we. >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> From a logical point of view, this quote is absolutely critical to >> understanding the mathematical ground of CSP’s writings. >> >> Although this concept is already present and / or inferred in many, many >> other places, particularly graph theoretic assertions, it is pleasing to >> see it is pleasing to see it clearly and unambiguously asserted. Since CSP >> refreshed his views of the nature of logic and its relation to realism (the >> sciences) regularity over the decades, these sentences logical constrain >> interpretations of earlier works such that his assertions are related to >> the chemical table of elements, even if only by the thinnest threads. >> >> Though the entire body of CSP’s works, he had made numerous references to >> role of chemistry in his thinking and even calculated a table of elements >> from original data. Most sadly, editors and interpreters either simply >> ignored the chemical roots of his philosophy or, as frequently was and is >> the case, ignored the chemical roots of his logic and often made misleading >> or even false assertions about meanings. For example, the concept of >> handedness, left and right handed molecules, is beyond any philosophical >> form of logic, either formal or informal that I am aware. Yet, the issue of >> handedness is a critical (if not the critical) constituent of CSP’s >> development and discussion of graph theory and its bedrock in organic >> chemistry. Natural handedness (left-handed amino-acids and right handed >> sugars) is essential to the logical interpretation of life, then and now. >> >> In an earlier paper, CSP compared the “doing” of mathematics with the >> “doing” of chemistry, at one point, nearly equating the two cognitive >> processes. This quote cited by Stephen refers to the mathematical nature of >> the relational logic among the chemical elements, and logical compositions >> from them. Each name of a “sin-sign”, that is a legisign with and index, >> is related to all other sin-signs composed from the Table of Elements. >> Thus, the referenced assertion is respect to the “difference that makes a >> difference” between any objects composed from the Table of Elements, >> including all life forms. During CSP’s lifespan, the chemical sciences >> developed rapidly; as it slowly but surely distanced itself from the >> alchemical linguistics and terminology and philosophy. >> >> I would even go so far as to say that CSP’s gradually evolving views on >> the realism of natural logic (semiotics) during his life span originated in >> the developments of natural normative logic, from an inorganic science in >> 1860 to the organic science as the Bedrock of his realism four decades >> later. >> >> Today, of course, the basic assertions deduced from the Table of Elements >> are no longer merely normative, but are widely accepted as formal logic, >> for example, in the medical and legal communities. >> >> Before CSP time, J S Mills recognized, roughly speaking, this distinction >> between forms of matter with the terms “heteropathy and homeopathy”, >> consistent with the quote above, despite the distinctions between >> connotative and denotative terms.. >> >> Even earlier, Leibniz (1646 - 1716) recognized, roughly speaking, this >> distinction with his definition of predicates; every predicate is either >> implicitly or explicitly contained in the subject. In this instance, The >> subject is the table of elements and the predicates are all the chemical >> elements. Another predicate of the table of elements is that it is >> organized into rows and columns; these rows and columns demonstrate the >> *interdependence* of the identity of each element, linguistically, >> physically, chemically and implicitly biologically. >> >> The list of CSP’s assertions that chemical logic is at the root of his >> bedrock beliefs continues to growth in number, in breadth, and in >> comprehension with respect to the modern language of chemistry. >> >> John S. : Can you construct a narrative that makes the individual >> elements of the continuous line representing the set theoretical construct >> of "Universal Quantifiers” logically consistent with the above quote? My >> conjecture is that Conceptual Graphs are unlikely to be extensible in this >> sense. If such a conjectural argument is constructible, would your >> conjecture be the same notion of continuity that CSP mathematical >> representation of continuity, e.g., as “welded together” or an unmarked >> line? >> >> Joseph, thank you for your recent remarks about the meaning of an >> equivalence relation. I presume my response not useful for your purposes. >> I presume, further, that these remarks are not persuasive to you. But, at >> least the assertions here relating the critical logical triad >> (independence, interdependence and dependence) may be of interest to you >> and your assertions about triadic cubism and the prose that seeks to >> construct a 27-term logic. The mathematical equivalence relation is of >> limited value when the terms, such as “gold” or “silver”, are not variables. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:05 PM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: >> >>> List, >>> >>> I finally found (just as I was on the point of giving up) a text in >>> which Peirce explains the relationship between his Existential Graphs and >>> his phenomenological “categories” (or experiential Universes, as he calls >>> them there). It’s one of the incomplete drafts included in R 300, which >>> Peirce entitled “The Bed-rock Beneath Pragmaticism.” I’ve been busy >>> transcribing this from the manuscript images at the Peirce Archive >>> https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/home.php, and although >>> my transcript is incomplete, I decided to put it up on my website, because >>> parts of it relate to several of the current threads on this list. >>> >>> R 300 is a very interesting document, partly because it appears to be >>> his very last attempt to complete the *Monist* series on pragmatism >>> which had occupied him for over three years. The first two articles in the >>> series (Selections 24 and 25 in EP2) appeared in 1905, followed by the >>> “Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism” in 1906. In the “Bedrock” MS, >>> Peirce says that there would be two more articles in the *Monist* series >>> to complete his “proof” of Pragmaticism — and this was apparently written >>> *after* Selection 28 in EP2 (R 318, 1907), where “Peirce comes closer >>> than in any other to fully expressing his brand of pragmatism and to giving >>> a clearly articulated proof,” according to the editors (EP2:398). Don >>> Roberts dates R 300 “about March of 1908,” which is consistent with the >>> time spans mentioned by Peirce in the MS itself. >>> >>> The main part of “Bedrock” consists of 65 manuscript pages numbered by >>> Peirce. Much of it is about Existential Graphs, identity and teridentity, >>> etc., and may be of interest to John S. and Jon A.S. (Jon has posted some >>> quotes from it already). Jerry C. should be interested in the part where >>> Peirce says that the “most interesting term of comparison for Existential >>> Graphs is the system of ‘rational formulae,’ or graphs, that are used in >>> Organic Chemistry.” Helmut R. should be interested in Peirce’s argument >>> that the concept of *Sequence* (which does indeed involve time) is >>> logically *simpler* than the concept of negation. As for the partial >>> draft relating EGs to phenomenology, I think it might give some clues as to >>> why Peirce abandoned the project of using EGs for his proof of >>> pragmaticism. Any of this and a lot more can be found by searching for the >>> right keywords in the page on my website, >>> http://gnusystems.ca/Bedrock.htm. >>> >>> Comments or questions on this text can be posted here with the subject >>> line above. >>> >>> Gary f. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Joe Simpson > “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people > attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, > depends on unreasonable people.” > George Bernard Shaw > Git Hub link: > https://github.com/jjs0sbw > Research Gate link: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3 > YouTube Channel > https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw > Web Site: > https://systemsconcept.org/ > > > -- Joe Simpson “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” George Bernard Shaw Git Hub link: https://github.com/jjs0sbw Research Gate link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw Web Site: https://systemsconcept.org/
----------------------------- 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 .
