Peirce’s 1870 “Logic Of Relatives” • Selection 11

We continue with §3. Application of the Algebraic Signs to Logic.

The Signs for Multiplication (concl.)

The conception of multiplication we have adopted is that of the application of one relation to another.  So, a quaternion being the relation of one vector to another, the multiplication of quaternions is the application of one such relation to a second.

Even ordinary numerical multiplication involves the same idea, for 2 \times 3 is a pair of triplets, and 3 \times 2 is a triplet of pairs, where “triplet of” and “pair of” are evidently relatives.

If we have an equation of the form:

xy ~=~ z

and there are just as many x’s per y as there are, per things, things of the universe, then we have also the arithmetical equation:

[x][y] ~=~ [z].

For instance, if our universe is perfect men, and there are as many teeth to a Frenchman (perfect understood) as there are to any one of the universe, then:

[\mathit{t}][\mathrm{f}] ~=~ [\mathit{t}\mathrm{f}]

holds arithmetically.

So if men are just as apt to be black as things in general:

[\mathrm{m,}][\mathrm{b}] ~=~ [\mathrm{m,}\mathrm{b}]

where the difference between [\mathrm{m}] and [\mathrm{m,}] must not be overlooked.

It is to be observed that:

[\mathit{1}] ~=~ \mathfrak{1}.

Boole was the first to show this connection between logic and probabilities.  He was restricted, however, to absolute terms.  I do not remember having seen any extension of probability to relatives, except the ordinary theory of expectation.

Our logical multiplication, then, satisfies the essential conditions of multiplication, has a unity, has a conception similar to that of admitted multiplications, and contains numerical multiplication as a case under it.

(Peirce, CP 3.76)

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Graph Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Peirce’s 1870 “Logic Of Relatives” • Selection 11

  1. Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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