Azamat,
People observe the intension/extension distinction
without learning the name for the distinction.
AA>It
implies that operational meanings or definitions could be more
significant than an intension/extension or representation/reference or
connotation/denotation dichotomy.
Languages
Helmut,
In every version of language and logic -- ancient or
modern, informal or formal -- the intensional definition is fundamental.
It corresponds to the definition you'll find in a typical dictionary of
any natural language or in any formal specification in science,
engineering, business, o
John,
yes, but isn´t it so, that in mathematics and symbolic logic, if the extension is known i.e. covered by proofs, an intensional term can be equivalent with an extensional one, and this is called "classical logic"? That is, if I am right, that e.g. "NOT (A AND NOT B)" is extensional, and me
Helmut,
The distinction between intesion and extension is
important for every version of logic since antiquity. The oldest example
is "rational animal" vs. "featherless biped" -- those
are two terms with different intensions, but the same extension. Diogenes
the Cynic plucked a chicken and thr
Terry, I completely agree with what you wrote (copy below).
But
I emphasized database relations because they are the most commonly used
examples of relations that are defined by extension.
However, the
meaning of the data is specified by the rules or axioms that state the
intensions. Those sp
Jon, John,
just a thought: Might it be, that in classical mathematics and logic there is not distinguished between intension and extension, and in intuitionistic logic there is? For example, "NOT (A AND NOT B)" is an extensionistic proposition, or the extension of the relation, but "IF A THEN B
Jon A,
It's important to distinguish the intension and the
extension of a function or relation. The *intension* is its definition by
a rule or set of axioms. The *extension* is the set of instances in some
domain or universe of discourse:
JA> We can now define a
relation L as a subset of a
Just a note : Is it not possible to do a “Command-K” and make a single word or
phrase a link to web site pages? That would avoid the pasting of immense
patches of code on the page. Just a suggestion. —SxS
On Dec 31, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outs
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - thank you for these posts.
I particularly like your comment that 'signhood is a ROLE in a
triadic relation, a role that a thing bears or plays in a given
context of relationships - it is not an absolute, non
Cf: Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • 1
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/10/10/sign-relations-triadic-relations-relation-theory-1/
To understand how signs work in Peirce's theory of triadic sign relations,
or “semiotics”, we have to understand, in order of increasing generali
Biosemiotic has two branches: zoosemiotic and phytosemiotic.
For a
review of the literature about plants up to 2016, see "Intelligence,
cognition, and language of green plants", by Anthony Trewavas:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4845027/
The Wikipedia
article on plant perception
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}What it means to be that mediative sign/representamen? As Robert
Marty clearly pointed out, it includes a build-up of a generalized
knowledge base which functions to mediate that input
energy/data/information [which in thi
Cf: Sign Relations • Anthesis
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/28/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-anthesis/
Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of
reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding w
Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relations • 1
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/05/09/sign-relations-triadic-relations-relations-%e2%80%a2-1/
Peircers,
Questions of a sort readers of Peirce address under the head of pragmatic
semiotics
have arisen in the Ontolog Forum, devoted to contempora
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon Awbrey, list:
Thanks for your post - and specifically, for your comment:
"the greater significance of the transformation he suggests at these
points is
not the shift from one type of interpreter t
Peircers, Ontologgers,
These issues go way way back and my notes tell me I've been trying
to write something along these lines for at least a year but I was
prompted to return to the question by a post from John Sowa to the
Peirce List, so I've copied that below.
There's a better-formatted copy
Thanks for searching, Jon. I finally found it, it was between Orliaguet
& Inna Semetsky, not & Kirsti. My bad. See the message that I just sent
to peirce-l - Best, Ben
On 2/2/2017 10:56 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Peircers,
I went looking for the mentioned exchange between
Jean-Marc Orliaguet and K
Peircers,
I went looking for the mentioned exchange between
Jean-Marc Orliaguet and Kirsti Määttänen and have
not found it yet, but I did run across an archive
of canonical selections from Peirce and previous
discussions on Sign Relations that may be of use.
It looks like I left off prettifying t
18 matches
Mail list logo
