Comments for Inquiry Into Inquiry

Comment on ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ by Jon Awbrey

Jon Awbrey — Mon, 20 May 2013 03:24:08 +0000

I think we all find someday that something we really want to understand can't be understood without slogging through some pretty rough trenches, and then there is nothing for it but to slog away. But try reading the “Interpretation as Action : Risk of Inquiry” paper if nothing else. Anything Sue co-authored will be a far finer read than anything I ever wrote on my own.

Comment on Triadic Relation Irreducibility : 1 by Jon Awbrey

Jon Awbrey — Mon, 20 May 2013 02:48:01 +0000

A k-adic relation can be constructed from k dyadic relations, but only by means of a k-adic identity relation that connects k of their domains in a specific way. It is sufficient to use 3-adic identity relations for this purpose, which Peirce called teridentity relations.

Comment on ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ by Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Sun, 19 May 2013 17:01:36 +0000

Jon, if I had the chops I’d work my way through the list of readings, but from here it goes over my pretty little head. I’m cheering on the sideline, though.

Comment on ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ by Jon Awbrey

Jon Awbrey — Sun, 19 May 2013 14:54:16 +0000

That is one of the founding observations of Peirce's semiotics, or theory of signs. See the links on Sign Relations and the list of readings I collected at the end of the previous post. In ways I'm still trying to understand, Peirce's theory of triadic sign relations is of a piece with his theory of 3-facet or 3-phase inquiry.

Comment on Triadic Relation Irreducibility : 1 by Victor Porton

Victor Porton — Sun, 19 May 2013 12:30:12 +0000

An n-ary relation can be composed with n binary relations. A generalization of this (I call it categories with star morphisms) naturally appear in the theory of funcoids:

Algebraic General Topology and Math Synthesis

(see the chapter “Multifuncoids and Staroids” of the book located at this URL).

Comment on ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ by Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Sun, 19 May 2013 06:28:58 +0000

Jon, please tell me if my mathematically naive comments are annoying.

Hearing no objection …

One argument for triadic irreducibility from empirical observation is that we can’t seem to do semantic computation (as far as I know) with combinations of dyadic associations. We have to use triples.

Comment on Château Descartes by ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry

⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry — Sun, 19 May 2013 03:20:08 +0000

[…] Château Descartes […]

Comment on Triadic Relation Irreducibility : 3 by ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry

⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry — Sun, 19 May 2013 03:00:29 +0000

[…] ← Triadic Relation Irreducibility : 3 […]

Comment on Triadic Relation Irreducibility : 2 by ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry

⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry — Sun, 19 May 2013 03:00:27 +0000

[…] Posts on Triadic Relation Irreducibility • (1) • (2) • […]

Comment on Triadic Relation Irreducibility : 1 by ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry

⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry — Sun, 19 May 2013 03:00:23 +0000

[…] most common trap I run across has to do with Triadic Relation Irreducibility, as noted and treated by the polymath […]