Helmut and Jon,
HR
But what is an *argument" with the "is" used for identity,
like "is and only is", or "exactly is"?
I agree that more detail is required for a definition of 'argument'.
Every argument includes a sequence of propositions, but an arbitrary
sequence of propositions is not an arg
John S., List:
You asked me on Friday, "Who is your intended audience?" It has become
clear from this exchange that it is not logicians. I am seeking neither to
conform to the standard terminology of modern formal logic, nor to revise
it. I am simply coming at it from a different (but still Pei
Supplement: No, that does not get it. It may be, that I am hungry and weak, but, though weakness may usually
be a subset of hungriness, I dont get weak from being hungry so soon, but am weak because I am thirsty. So what now?
John, list,
"An *argument* is a sequence of one or more propos
John, list,
"An *argument* is a sequence of one or more propositions" is true, of course, by "is" used, as commonly, for "is a kind of".
But what is an *argument" with the "is" used for identity, like "is and only is", or "exactly is"?
It must contain something like a "because" or a "so", so (gu
On 1/27/2019 10:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
In other words, you simply choose to add a fourth division
--identifiers--rather than widening one, as Peirce did.
No. There is a difference between adding some fundamentally
new semantics and just giving a name to some syntactic variant.
To be cle
John S., List:
JFS: An *identifier* is a symbol that represents something in the UoD. In
the algebraic notation, an identifier is called a variable. In EGs, an
identifier is called a line of identity.
In other words, you simply choose to add a fourth
division--identifiers--rather than widening
Jon AS,
In modern predicate logic, is the variable a predicate, a proposition,
or an argument (in Peirce's sense)? Clearly none of these, so either
a fourth division is required or the first one must be widened.
Every sentence in every version of logic, formal or informal,
consists of symbols
John S., List:
In modern predicate logic, is the variable a predicate, a proposition, or
an argument (in Peirce's sense)? Clearly none of these, so either a fourth
division is required or the first one must be widened.
In standard notation for modern predicate logic, an upside-down A or E
repres
On 1/27/2019 12:36 AM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I might quibble with the language "/pure/ index"--is there such a thing?
I support the quibble. Just look at any index, such as a weather vane.
It has an arrow that points in the direction of the wind.
And that arrow resembles (is an icon of) the ki
Jon, John, list,
Jon wrote: ". . .the subject matter here is not limited to *logic *as the
science of *Symbols*--it is *semeiotic *as the science of *all Signs*. A
pure Index denotes something without signifying anything, which means that
it neither is nor has a predicate."
I agree (although I m
Jon AS,
the subject matter here is not limited to logic as the science
of Symbols--it is semeiotic as the science of all Signs.
In the quotations below, logic is "another name for semiotic."
All theories, including every version of logic and semiotic, are
stated in symbols, but symbols can be
Icon, Index, Symbol I take to be the foundational CSP triad and the one
from which I infer Reality, Ethics, Aesthetics as a basis for proposing a
mode of universal conscious thinking.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 6:23 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> John S., List:
>
> JFS:
John S., List:
JFS: That is why the precise triad for modern logic *and* for Peirce's
algebraic logic is predicate/proposition/argument.
Sure, but as I keep pointing out, the subject matter here is not
limited to *logic
*as the science of *Symbols*--it is *semeiotic *as the science of *all
Sig
Edwina and Jon AS,
I think that this transformative semiosis is what should be emphasized,
since its infrastructure is a powerful speculative framework, which can
be used with great effect in examining and explaining not only
linguistic evolution and cognitive processes but also biological and
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I fully agree with your concern.
Discussions about terminology, which sees those terms as akin to
isolate separate species differentiation and classification, are
'simple' in the sense that th
I came across a diagram that shows the patterns of references
to various philosophers in publications from 1950 to the present:
https://homepage.univie.ac.at/noichlm94/img/struct_phil_iii/full_struct.pdf
See below for a description of how that diagram was derived.
Most of the references are to p
16 matches
Mail list logo
