Jerry,
As you know very well, there is a huge difference in the various kinds of
chemical bonds.In a combination of a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase
(VP). The NP is analogous to a sodium ion Na with a negative charge, and the
VP is analogous to a sulfate ion (SO4) with a positive
Jerry, List:
Roberts is not discussing metalanguage at all in that excerpt from p. 22 of
his 1973 book, he is talking about rhemata/rhemes (Peirce uses both terms).
These are incomplete propositions, with blanks where subjects need to be
added in order to turn them into complete propositions.
John, Jon:
In my opinion your responses to the issues surrounding Tarski’s “metalanguage"
are so weak from a scientific point of view that it is simpler to just pose an
example of the meanings of metalanguages in the relevant logic used by CSP.
The following is an excerpt from Robert’s book,
Jon, List,
All the commentary, quotations, and citations below by both of us are
irrelevant to mathematical practice from ancient times to the present.
Following is a definitive statement of mathematical practice from Euclid to the
present:
In mathematics, the distinction between axioms,
John, List:
JFS: I am happy to say that I completely agree with Jon's note below.
However, the following passage from another note is misleading about
Peirce, Euclid, and mathematical practice from ancient times to the present.
The quoted passage is from my same note below.
JFS: In
Jerry, Jon, List,
JLRC: If the critical concept that is under scrutiny here the issue of “graphs
of graphs” , how is this related to the arithmetical notion of division?
I agree with Jon's explanation below that Peirce did not use the word
"division" to mean the numerical operation of
Jerry, List:
No one is claiming that Peirce ever used the *term *"metalanguage," only
the *concept*. Specifically, he provided a Gamma EG notation for asserting
a proposition about a proposition--the lightly drawn (1898) or dotted
(1903) oval for treating a complete proposition as a *subject
Jon, List
> On Mar 20, 2024, at 12:46 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> Peirce's 1898 and 1903 notations for metalanguage are identical, except that
> the oval and line are lightly drawn in the former and dotted in the latter.
>
> Peirce's "red pencil" notation in R 514 has nothing to do
