Relations & Their Relatives : 8

Re: Peirce List DiscussionHoward Pattee

At this point we can distinguish two forms of decomposability or reducibility — along with their corresponding negations, indecomposability or irreducibility – that commonly arise.

  • Reducibility under relational composition P \circ Q.

All triadic relations are irreducible in this sense.  This is because relational compositions of monadic and dyadic relations can produce only more monadic and dyadic relations.

  • Reducibility under projections.  For this we need a few definitions:

Every triadic relation, say L contained as a subset of the cartesian product X \times Y \times Z, determines three dyadic relations, namely, the projections of L on the three “planes” X \times Y, X \times Z, and Y \times Z.

In particular:

Every sign relation, say M contained as a subset of the cartesian product O \times S \times I, those being the sets of objects, signs, and interpretant signs respectively under discussion, determines three dyadic relations, which we may notate as follows:

  • \mathrm{proj}_{OS}{M}, the projection of M on the O \times S plane;
  • \mathrm{proj}_{OI}{M}, the projection of M on the O \times I plane;
  • \mathrm{proj}_{SI}{M}, the projection of M on the S \times I plane.

The following Figure illustrates the situation:

Aspects Of A Sign Relation

Here is the critical point.  The triadic relation always determines the three dyadic projections but the three dyadic projections may or may not determine the triadic relation.  Thus we have two cases:

  • If the dyadic projections determine the triadic relation, that is, there is only one triadic relation that has those three projections, then the triadic relation is said to be projectively reducible to those three dyadic relations.
  • If the dyadic projections do not determine the triadic relation, that is, there is more than one triadic relation that has those same three projections, then the triadic relation is said to be projectively irreducible.

See the following article for concrete examples of both possibilities, a pair of generic triadic relations that are projectively irreducible and a pair of triadic sign relations that are projectively reducible to their dyadic projections.

Resources

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Diagrammatic Reasoning, Diagrams, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Tertium Quid, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Relations & Their Relatives : 8

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

  2. Pingback: Relations & Their Relatives : 15 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  3. Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 2 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

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

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