inations, unless there is typical angular field behavior through
any plane? Any thoughts?
Jim W
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Chemical Logic
From: jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:47:44 -0600
CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
To: jimwillgo...@msn.com
Jim, List:
On Feb 27, 2
Jim, List:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote:
My comments are given below.
> Jerry, list
>
> Suppose that;
>
> +H : O : -H --> +H v O v -H
>
> would you say,
> 1) ':' is uninterpreted
> 2) ':' is uninterpretable
> 3) association fails so that there should be pairing '()' arou
Jerry, list
Ok. You are the chemist. However, this may be a little unfair to logic, in
so far as I didn't even add a quantifier to allow for diversity of yea and nay
if need be. I used the designator "this" to suggest a single simple case. It
seems that many of the stated nominal conventi
