Higher Order Sign Relations • 4

Re: Higher Order Sign Relations • 3
Re: Relations, Types, Functions
Re: CyberneticsCliff Joslyn

CJ:
Categorical approaches to systems theory have been very attractive to me for a long time.  My current work is categorically adjacent, and I’m funding some efforts in this direction.  The category of binary relations is central to our immediate work in hypergraphs and high-order networks, but is also to any general systems theoretical approach.  I’ve approached topoi and closed Cartesian categories a few times, but admit it’s challenging.  I need something at the level that David Spivak and crew have been developing to become more fluent, if you’re aware of his work.  Any worked examples you could provide would be very useful and welcome.

Dear Cliff,

There are a few sources I recall most vividly for the way they capture the attractions of categories.  The following references come from a bibliography I collected in the early 90s plus a number I added over the course of that decade.

The following sources may also be of interest.

  • Mili • Program construction and semantics from a relational point of view, using Tarski’s approach to binary relations (Fatma Mili taught a course on this at OU).
  • Freyd and ScedrovCategories, Allegories, a category-theoretic take on binary relations.

cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsLaws of FormOntolog Forum
cc: FB | Inquiry Driven SystemsStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Gödel Numbers, Higher Order Sign Relations, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Logic, Peirce, Quotation, Reflection, Reflective Interpretive Frameworks, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.