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

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’s a gentle introduction at the other end of the link below, if you wish to achilles ahead.

cc: CyberneticsLaws of FormOntologPeirceStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, Analogy, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Cybernetics, Deduction, Differential Logic, Duality, Form, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Time, Topology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 7

  1. Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 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 )

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.