Re: Peirce List Discussion • Jeffrey Brian Downard
In viewing the structures of relation spaces, even the smallest dyadic cases we’ve been exploring so far, no one need feel nonplussed at the lack of obviousness in this domain. Anyone who spends much time doing mathematics will discover how far from being that advertised brand of purely à priori, non-empirical, non-observational, non-nitty-gritty practice it really is. This is especially true of combinatorics, where a would-be theorist for the lack of a good theory about a species of combinatorial creatures will proceed like a seventeenth century naturalist, collecting specimens of combinatorial fauna and flora until their natures impress themselves on a thus-prepared mind. Just as I’ve been doing here.
Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 2 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 2 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry