BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon - thanks for reminding us that 'building castles in the
stratosphere' is not an outline of the full reality of our universe.
That is - as I keep saying, theories without a ground in empirical
reality are 'castles
List,
Loet Leydesdorff included PEIRCE-L among recipients of the following
message, but the message was held by the PEIRCE-L server in moderation,
since Mr. Leydesdorff is not subscribed to PEIRCE-L. I contacted him
and asked about his maybe joining the list or my maybe forwarding to the
Hello Jon, Lists,
Two things:
1. As you prepare to explain in greater detail what Peirce is doing in this
1880 essay on the algebra of logic, let me ask if you are reading the essay in
light of C.S. Peirce's reflections on his father's work on linear associative
algebra? In particular, in
At 02:10 PM 2/3/2015, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
So, to restate the point, relations involving representation don't
determine the things that are represented in the way that the laws
of fact determine the relations between existing facts, and neither
kind of determination is a matter of
Hi Jon,
What would you call the whole triadic relation in that case?
I have assumed that Peirce introduced 'representamen' to avoid the potential
confusion, but he isn't consistent by any means. (His care about terminology
was not always manifested.) I suppose we could use 'sign triplet',
2 out of 3 is at least half of 3:)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 00:01:23 -0500
From: jawb...@att.net
To: jimwillgo...@msn.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Triadic Relations
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/category/frankl-conjecture/
;)
On 1/31/2015 8:29 PM
John,
I liked your poem. Your list of locked-in descriptors could probably be added
to, and then examined in the light of the mutual endangerment of the religious
authorities by the community of investigators. I believe in the open-ended use
of the basic definition of sign without too
Re: Jim Willgoose
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15578
Jim, List,
Ah, well, but you see, I continue to be concerned with applications.
The joys of smoke-ring-craft on our painted portico are many, but ...
One does not simply walk into Mordor with the armchair
Yes! Walking into Mordor with sets of triples. And what is that 'like?'
Jim W
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 14:54:26 -0500
From: jawb...@att.net
To: jimwillgo...@msn.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Re: Jim Willgoose
At: http
Gary R., lists,
Thanks, Gary.
The discussion of semiotic determination at the Wikipedia Peirce article
were originally written by others including Jon Awbrey and then edited
by me. I've shown the URLs in the links in the footnotes so that they'll
be accessible in the I.U. archive.
Gary R., lists,
I just noticed further discussion of semiotic determination in the fifth
or so paragraph in the linked section in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29#Triadic_signs
This paragraph was my rewrite of a paragraph that explained signs in
terms of Peirce's article
At 08:50 PM 1/28/2015, Jon Awbrey wrote:
This is common misconception of life as semiotics.
HP: Without some evidence here, I would consider this misconception
only one opinion. Many others say life and semiotics are coextensive.
JA: A more pragmatic understanding of the process would
'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Jeff, Jon, lists,
I think that all that is required for an ordered triple, or an ordering of any
length, is a rough notion of 'more' or 'less', for example an ordering of
personal preferences, and this is enough for theorems, for example
http
...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
John C., Jeff, lists,
John, You're right, in the sense of 'ordered pair' (e.g., such that, in set
theory, _relation_ is defined as ordered pair), it's true that there's no
intuitive sense of 'more' or 'less' or 'earlier
Howard, lists,
For my part, your question is difficult for two reasons: 1. I don't know
much about biology, and 2. Peirce gets complicated when he considers the
semiotics of commands.
One could consider the protein as a dynamic interpretant from the
viewpoint of the protein. From the
...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sent: 29-Jan-15 1:14 PM
To: Benjamin Udell; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Ben, List,
I guess I have trouble making sense of the notion of determination here. I know
you are saying what Peirce says; that isn’t at issue for me
Udell [mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com]
*Sent:* January 29, 2015 7:23 PM
*To:* biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L'
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
John C., Jeff, lists,
John, You're right, in the sense of 'ordered pair' (e.g., such that,
in set theory, _/relation/ _ is defined
Ben,
Thanks for providing this and the other materials in your previous message
on Peirce's use of determination in semiotic contexts. While I'm familiar
with much of it, it's all worth a fresh re-reading, and having it in an
(almost) single place is most helpful.
By the way, Nattiez is a French
Ben, Jeff, lists,
Not all ordered triples are ordered as specified by Peirce (as you have
nicely summarized) and hence capable of semiosis.
The simplest way to define Peirce's irreducible triad seems to me to be in
terms of the commutative triangle or category.
In other words, there are two kinds
Jeff, Jon, lists,
I think that all that is required for an ordered triple, or an ordering
of any length, is a rough notion of 'more' or 'less', for example an
ordering of personal preferences, and this is enough for theorems, for
example
Hi Jon, Lists,
I've been thinking about the way you are characterizing triadic relations in
terms of ordered triples. For a while now, I've been wondering if there are
limits to such an approach that might make it difficult to explain what is
special about a genuinely triadic relation. Here
Consider the concept 'Dog'. The knowledge about how the concept 'dog' is
exactly represented in brain is ZERO.
Concept is sign. So, how is peircean triadic sign represented in Brain in a
case 'DOG'. Is that sure that 'DOG' is triadic sign?
kindly, markku
Lähetetty laitteesta
Could you construct a peircean artifact which can produce the concept DOG or
triadic sign DOG.
markku
Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti
Lähettäjä: mar...@hotmail.fi
Lähetetty: keskiviikko, 28. tammikuuta 2015 0:08
Vast.ott: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Kopio:
jawb...@att.net
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L' PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
At 10:04 PM 12/16/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
In the best mathematical terms, a triadic relation is a cartesian
product of three
Jon, Edwina, list,
Jon wrote:
Here I was following the convention of using upper (122014-1)
case letters to denote sets of objects and lower case
letters to denote objects regarded as individuals.
I did not know that such a convention existed in set theory. This seems a
useful
Yes, Jon, that's a useful convention and I agree with it. The fact that you
don't understand the rest is certainly fine with me! I have to admit that
much of what you write is 'beyond my ken' but I still acknowledge your work
as of great value to those who do.
All the best for Xmas.
Edwina
, Ben. See mine below.
- Original Message -
*From:* Benjamin Udell
*To:* Edwina Taborsky
*Sent:* Friday, December 19, 2014 1:09 PM
*Subject:*Re: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, list,
1) You wrote,
What I'm talking about is a biochemical process, where
Can we reduce religious ideas and their manifestations within social
institutions and their practice, in historical situations, to triadic
sign-theory? How about dynamics in sign-processes within societies etc.
kindly, markku
Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti
Can we reduce religious ideas and their manifestations within social
institutions and their practice, in historical situations, to triadic
sign-theory? How about dynamics in sign-processes within societies etc.
kindly, markku sormunen
Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti
appreciated.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce-L'
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, lists,
I haven't read the whole thread, but...
I
: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Markku- I'm not, in my semiosic analysis, referring to what HUMANS are talking
about with their metalanguage. I'm talking about the semiosic processes that go
on in the biological realm, within the, for example, cell - which has nothing
to do
Edwina, lists,
You wrote,
What I'm talking about is a biochemical process, where, let's say, a
cell (which is a cognitive system) ingests some external data
(water, nutrients) (Object) and, semiosically transforms that input
data, via its mediative habits-of-organization (the
Thanks for your response, Ben. See mine below.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell
To: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:7792] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, list,
1) You wrote,
What I'm
.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce-L'
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, lists,
I
Edwina wrote:
. . . focus seems only to be one whether to call them: (121814-1)
a Relation or an irreducible set of 3 Relations.
Peirces' triadic relation satisfies the commutativity condition in that O
determines S and S determines I in such a manner that I is indirectly
determined by S
At 12:12 AM 12/17/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
What do I see in a picture like this?
```s``
``/```
o---R
``\```
```i``
The R brings to mind a triadic relation R, which collateral
knowledge tells me is a set of 3-tuples. What sort of
3-tuples? The picture sets a place for
appreciated.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce-L'
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, lists,
I haven't read the whole thread, but...
I think that it's
:* biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ;
'Peirce-L' mailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:31 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, lists,
I haven't read the whole thread, but...
I think that it's true
...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce-L' PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:31 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, lists,
I haven't read the whole thread, but...
I think that it's true that many of us have discussed the sign relations
quasi- or pseudo
triadic three cents worth. Much appreciated.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; 'Peirce-L'
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Triadic Relations
Edwina, lists
At 10:04 PM 12/16/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote:
In the best mathematical terms, a triadic relation is a cartesian
product of three sets together with a specified subset of that
cartesian product.
I know that. My question was: Is there a graph theory representation
of a triadic relation that does
41 matches
Mail list logo
