Gary F and Jon AS,
GF
I’ve just been on a wild goose chase trying to check out Peirce’s
cryptic remarks about his choice of “blot” in L 376.
I checked Cora's etymological dictionaries. The one that traces
Greek roots to Indo-European doesn't mention φλἀω. Another says
that φλἀω is rare in At
mputation. (And what he wrote about
> “logical machines” does not even mention EGs.)
>
> Now I think I’ll just forget about this whole subject and put on a ΠΙΝΚ
> ΦΛΟΙΔ CD.
>
> Gary f.
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: John F Sowa
> Sent: 14-Apr-19 09:15
&g
ee CP 6.581-7)
Yours,
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
____________
From: g...@gnusystems.ca
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 9:21 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce ad
put on a ΠΙΝΚ ΦΛΟΙΔ
CD.
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa
Sent: 14-Apr-19 09:15
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce admitted that his terminology of 1906 was bad.
Gary F, Jon AS,
I know what Peirce wrote about efficiency. But I also know that he
Gary F, Jon AS,
I know what Peirce wrote about efficiency. But I also know that
he was the author of "Logical Machines" (1887) and that he urged
Oscar Mitchell to consider electrical circuits as a more efficient
basis for designing logical machines. For those reasons, Peirce
has been called a p
about EGs after
> December 1911, we may never know the implications of Peirce’s choice of
> that word for logic as semeiotic. But that it *was* a deliberate choice,
> made as usual according to his ethics of terminology, is beyond question.
>
> Gary f.
>
> -----Original Message-
&
rce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce admitted that his terminology of 1906 was bad.
Jon AS, Gary F, and Jeff,
When we're talking about classical first-order logic, the semantics of every
precisely defined notation for the past 140 years has a precisely defined
mapping to and
Jon AS, Gary F, and Jeff,
When we're talking about classical first-order logic, the semantics
of every precisely defined notation for the past 140 years has a
precisely defined mapping to and from every other version. On this
point, there are no controversial issues. The mapping is either
corre
ense to me.
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >
Sent: 12-Apr-19 13:09
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce admitted that his terminology of 1906 was bad.
John, Gary F., List:
JFS: I have repeate
ps you can explain a bit more what you mean by saying that
> the shading for negative areas (instead of cuts) “puts the emphasis on
> *semantics*.”
>
> Gary f.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John F Sowa
> Sent: 11-Apr-19 23:15
> To: Peirce-L
> Cc: Mary Keeler
&g
y
of such diagrammatic models.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: g...@gnusystems.ca
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 5:32:08 AM
To: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce a
Gary F,
The introduction of the term “blot” for “the simplest part of speech
which this syntax contemplates” is especially interesting, as I’d never
seen it before (although he did use the term “blot” in 1903 to explain
why a cut should be read as negation).
The word 'blot' is a short name f
he
system, perhaps you can explain a bit more what you mean by saying that the
shading for negative areas (instead of cuts) “puts the emphasis on *semantics*.”
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa
Sent: 11-Apr-19 23:15
To: Peirce-L
Cc: Mary Keeler
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce admitte
Folks,
I have repeatedly said that Peirce's description of existential
graphs in 1909-1911 was his final preferred version.
I'm happy to report that he explicitly said so in a letter
to Risteen, MS L 376, December 6, 1911:
An account of [the syntax of existential graphs] was given in the
Monis
14 matches
Mail list logo
