Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 9

Re: Peirce List DiscussionJeffrey 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.

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Combinatorics, Dyadic Relations, Graph Theory, Group Theory, 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 • Discussion 9

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

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

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

  4. Pingback: Survey of Relation Theory • 4 | 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.