Monthly Archives: July 2015

Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 2

Posted on July 31, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Edwina Taborsky My old avatar 0* (Zero-Aster) does incline to laconic verses but I hope to address a class of concrete applications which will serve to unpack their sense. The main thing I wish to communicate … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Denotation, Extension, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Liar Paradox, Logic, Nominalism, Peirce, Pragmatics, Rhetoric, Semantics, Semiositis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Zeroth Law Of Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Zeroth Law Of Semiotics • Comment 1

Posted on July 31, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

New discussions of the so-called “Liar Paradox” have broken out at several places on the web in recent weeks, just to mention a couple of cases: Foundations Of Mathematics (FOM) • The Liar Revenge Gödel’s Lost Letter and P=NP • … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Denotation, Extension, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Liar Paradox, Logic, Nominalism, Peirce, Pragmatics, Rhetoric, Semantics, Semiositis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Zeroth Law Of Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Zeroth Law Of Semiotics

Posted on July 30, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Meaning is a privilege not a right. Not all pictures depict. Not all signs denote. Never confuse a property of a sign, just for instance, existence, with a sign of a property, for instance, existence. Taking a property of a … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Denotation, Extension, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Liar Paradox, Logic, Nominalism, Peirce, Pragmatics, Rhetoric, Semantics, Semiositis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Zeroth Law Of Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Semiositis • 1

Posted on July 10, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Cathy O’Neil • Profit as Proxy for Value Re: Michael Harris • Xenomoney There is a deep and pervasive analogy between systems of commerce and systems of communication, turning on their near-universal use of symbola (images, media, proxies, signs, … Continue reading →

Posted in Analogy, C.S. Peirce, Cathy O'Neil, Commerce, Communication, Mathematics, Michael Harris, Pragmatics, Semantics, Semiosis, Semiositis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Systems Theory, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 12

Posted on July 7, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien Definitions and examples for relation composition and the two most commonly arising types of relation reduction can be found in the following articles. Relation Composition Relation Reduction A previous post on this thread gives … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Control, Cybernetics, Dyadic Relations, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems Theory, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 11

Posted on July 6, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien Cf: Relation Reduction • Examples of Projectively Reducible Relations I constructed the “Ann and Bob” examples of sign relations back at the beginning of my Systems Engineering program when I had to explain how … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Control, Cybernetics, Dyadic Relations, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems Theory, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Inquiry, Signs, Relations • 1

Posted on July 5, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Michael Harris • A Non-Logical Cognitive Phenomenon Human spontaneous non-demonstrative inference is not, overall, a logical process.  Hypothesis formation involves the use of deductive rules, but is not totally governed by them;  hypothesis confirmation is a non-logical cognitive phenomenon:  … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Action, Analogy, C.S. Peirce, Cognition, Cognitive Science, Communication, Deduction, Foundations of Mathematics, Induction, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Michael Harris, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mathematics, Philosophy of Science, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Relevance, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 10

Posted on July 2, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Helmut Raulien The facts about relational reducibility are relatively easy to understand and I included links to relevant discussions in my earlier survey of relation theory. The following article discusses relational reducibility and irreducibility in … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Combinatorics, Dyadic Relations, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Tertium Quid, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 9

Posted on July 2, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Jeffrey Brian Downard In viewing the structures of relation spaces, even the smallest dyadic cases we’ve been exploring so far, no one need feel nonplussed at the lack of obviousness in this domain.  Anyone who … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Combinatorics, Dyadic Relations, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Tertium Quid, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments