Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 7

Re: Laws Of Form DiscussionBoundary LogicCB

A statement P that implies both Q and \lnot Q is called a false statement, and anyone can prove anything at all from a false statement, as we all too frequently observe on the political front these days.

There is however a reasonable way of handling boundaries, for instance, as illustrated by the circumference of a region in a venn diagram, and that is by means of differential logic.  I’ve been tortoising my way toward the goal line of explaining all that, and it’s going a bit slow, but there is a gentle introduction at the other end of the link below, if you wish to achilles ahead.

There’s also a Facebook page devoted to the subject, for anyone who uses that medium:

This entry was posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, Analogy, Animata, Automated Research Tools, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Cybernetics, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Differential Logic, Duality, Form, Graph Theory, Iconicity, Information Theory, Inquiry, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Peirce's Law, Pragmatic Maxim, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Spencer Brown, Symbolism, Systems Theory, Theorem Proving, Topology, Visualization, Zeroth Order Logic and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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