Jon, List,
A few more points:
1. The quotations you cited
are from a time when Peirce still thought that a sign of illation was
important for deduction. Note that in R670, he says that the EGs have
just three syntactic features: a line of identity, a spot for a rheme
and a shaded area for n
John, List, All:
In this post, I will simply respond to the numbered items below rather than
quoting them.
1. I am not aware of any evidence that Peirce ever explicitly *denied *that
illation is essential for deduction or *rejected *the use of the scroll for
that purpose in EGs. The absence of th
List, All:
I have been further pondering these remarks by Peirce near the end of R 669.
CSP: It now only remains to formulate those general permissions to modify
what has already been scribed which express the logicality of those several
forms of elementary deductive inference, out of which all o
In R670, Peirce said that the scroll is equivalent to a nest of two
negations. That means that any occurrence of one may be replaced by the
other without causing any change in the meaning.
In L231 and later
MSS, he did not mention or draw a scroll.
That doesn't mean you are
forbidden to draw a
Jon AS,
Thank you for emphasizing the fact that Peirce's only
comments in favor of the scroll came before June 1911.
In Peirce's
writings after that date, the scroll is "equivalent" to a nest
of two negations. In mathematics and logic, equivalence means freely
interchangeable in all contexts wi
John, List, All:
JFS: Thank you for emphasizing the fact that Peirce's only comments in
favor of the scroll came before June 1911.
Indeed, his "only" comments in favor of the scroll are in numerous passages
from his extensive writings about EGs between late 1896 and June 1911.
Nevertheless, as f
John:
> On Feb 8, 2021, at 9:21 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> In mathematics and logic, equivalence means freely interchangeable in all
> contexts without any change in meaning.
Really?
Cheers
Jerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
living the time
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 8-Feb-21 20:39
To: s...@bestweb.net; Peirce List
Cc: ahti-veikko.pietari...@taltech.ee; francesco.belluc...@unibo.it;
cdw...@iupui.edu; martin.irv...@georgetown.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Scroll vs Nested Ovals (was Existential Graphs in 1911)
<<< text/html; name="untitled-[2]": Unrecognized >>>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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
All,
I think, the difference is not the meaning, but what it is. Though the double negation´s meaning is the same as the conclusion´s meaning, the double negation has the form of a proposition, or a definition, which is secondness: "There is not a featherless biped that is not a human" may
Helmut - if you read Peirce's cosmological outlines [6.203 and
1.412], he begins with 1ns, moves on to the instantiations of 2ns,
and then, into the developing habits of 3ns. So, the 'actualization'
of the modes in spatiotemporal existence is linear.
But - all three modes are p
Edwina,
yes, "a human is a featherless biped" might be understood as singular description. I meant it as definition, so it is better to say "a human is defined as featherless biped", which is a proposition, a description of a status, and not yet a law. The semiosis of habit-formation goes 1-2-
Helmut, Edwina, List:
There are at least three different ways of translating the natural-language
sentence, "a human is a featherless biped," into a proposition in formal
logic.
1. Some human is a featherless biped.
2. Every human is a featherless biped = if something is a human then it
Jon, thank you! A very good example. "There is not a unicorn that is not pink" is true, but "Every unicorn is pink" is not true. This example at last has made me a believer in the relevance of intuitionistic logic.
Best, Helmut
30. Januar 2021 um 20:58 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"
wrote:
H
14 matches
Mail list logo
