Triadic Relation Irreducibility : 1

The core insight of Peirce’s conceptual system is the recognition that triadic relations are sui generis.  Understanding the properties of triadic relations and the consequences of their irreducibility is critical to understanding Peirce’s thought and work.  Every attempt to reconstruct Peirce’s system on a different basis must eventually fall like a house of cards.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Philosophy, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Triadic Relations and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Triadic Relation Irreducibility : 1

    • Jon Awbrey says:

      Saying why would be a two-parter at least —

      1. Why triadic relations are irreducible.
      2. Why triadic relations are necessary to Peirce’s conceptual system.

      No doubt some party of the third part is lurking in there somewhere …

    • Jon Awbrey says:

      After a day’s reflection, I guess the third part would have to be something like this —

      3. Why Peirce’s conceptual system is necessary to understand the world.

      That parses the question “Why” along the lines of a sign relation, where reality is part of an object domain O, Peirce’s conceptual system is part of a sign domain S, and our interpretation of his conceptual system is part of an interpretant domain I.

      • Joseph Harry says:

        The argument from authority for the triad being irreducible is that Peirce says so, and given his proofs of same we should believe it.  A simpler quantitative argument (an argument being a third, by the way) in qualitative form is that 3 automatically requires a 2, and 2 by the same token (pardon the pun), a 1.

    • Jon Awbrey says:

      Hi Robert, long time no see …

      • robert marty says:

        Hello Jon,
        I am retired 10 years ago but I continue to follow the main subjects on which I worked in particular the thesis of reduction a proof of which I published within the framework of the category of the relational structures. However my English is always so bad!

    • Jon Awbrey says:

      No problem if you write in French, since the online translators work well enough on the reading side these days to keep a conversation going. I only embarrass myself if I try to use them for writing though.

  1. Pingback: ⚠ It’s A Trap ⚠ | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. 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:

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

    • Jon Awbrey says:

      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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s