Monthly Archives: January 2018

Animated Logical Graphs • 12

Posted on January 31, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Facebook Discussion • Meredith Bricken Mills I’ve always been fond of picture proofs — it was one of the things that drew me to graph theory, topology, and the logical graphs of C.S. Peirce and Spencer Brown in the first place.  … Continue reading →

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Animated Logical Graphs • 11

Posted on January 30, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Richard Coyne • Inside Out Logic Venn diagrams make for very iconic representations of their universes of discourse.  That is one of the main sources of their intuitive utility and also the main source of their logical limitations — … Continue reading →

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 9

Posted on January 18, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Facebook Discussion • CJ Yes, that’s the idea. Descriptive semiotics needs formal models for describing any sort of sign-using conduct, whether conducted by humans, life-forms, machines, or sign-using systems in general. Normative semiotics, also known as logic, inquires into … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 8

Posted on January 17, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • JC Peirce being prickly as usual his distinctions all tend toward tri-stinctions and on this field he wields his trident:  Tone, Token, Type. Here’s a link to a few pertinent passages: Tone, Token, Type

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 7

Posted on January 16, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • FB I am still looking for a way to build a bridge between the different senses of complete and incomplete being used in this discussion but while that bridge is under construction it may help to … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 6

Posted on January 15, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • JA • FB • JA • FB Two different senses of completeness and incompleteness in regard to signs arose in discussion at this point, as illustrated by the following exchange: FB: “Socrates” for Peirce would be … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 5

Posted on January 12, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Note. The following links afford a review of the discussion up to this point. Re: Semiotic Triangle • JC • JA • JA • JC • JA • JA • JC • JA • FB • JA • JA Peirce … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 4

Posted on January 11, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: John Corcoran • Semiotic Triangle • My Comment The following passage is very instructive on several points, illuminating especially the relationship between interpreters (sign-using agents) and interpretant signs. We are all, then, sufficiently familiar with the fact that many … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 3

Posted on January 10, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • John Corcoran A sign relation is a formal structure that satisfies a very general definition, on the same order of generality as a mathematical group or geometry.  So any consideration of what a particular sign relation … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 2

Posted on January 9, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • John Corcoran In a typical sign relation where Socrates belongs to the object domain one sign in the sign domain could be the name “Socrates” and one interpretant in the interpretant domain could be the name … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 11 Comments