This brings me to the end of the notes on Peirce’s 1870 Logic of Relatives that I began posting to the web in various online discussion groups a dozen years ago. Apart from that there are only the scattered notes and bits of discussion with others that I’ve archived on the discussion page of the collateral InterSciWiki article.
I rushed through my last few comments a little too hastily, giving no more than sketches of proofs for Peirce’s logical formulas, and I won’t be reasonably well convinced of them until I examine a few more concrete examples and develop one or two independent lines of proof. So I have that much unfinished business to do before moving on to the rest of Peirce’s paper.
But I’ll take a few days to catch my breath, rummage through those old notes of mine to see if they hide any hints worth salvaging, and then start fresh, raveling out the rest of Peirce’s clues to the maze of logical relatives.
I came in toward the end of your epic notes J.A. Congratulations upon your revision of & testament to Peirce’s opus of logic.
Thanks, Phillip, the initial post is here, or follow this tag. I’ll eventually get all the revisions merged into the InterSciWiki article linked above.
Cheers, I’m reviewing as time & comprehension allow.
Am also trying to understand how his semiotics might apply to composite, bi-directional morphisms. I have quite literally, just stumbled onto this subject.
Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry