Monthly Archives: March 2018

The portions of exposition just skipped over covered the use of cactus graphs in the program’s learning module to learn sequences of characters called “words” or “strings” and sequences of words called “sentences” or “strands”.  Leaving the matter of grammar … Continue reading →

Re: Laws Of Form • Armahedi Mahzar AM:  Why do you need XOR in your inquiry system? Clearly we need a way to represent exclusive disjunction, along with its dual, logical equivalence, in any calculus capable of covering propositional logic, … Continue reading →

Lexical, Literal, Logical Theme One puts cactus graphs to work in three distinct but related ways, called lexical, literal, and logical applications.  The three modes of operation employ three distinct but overlapping subsets of the broader species of cacti.  Accordingly we … Continue reading →

We have seen how to take an abstract logical graph of a sort a person might have in mind to represent a logical state of affairs and translate it into a string of characters a computer can translate into a … Continue reading →

Coding Logical Graphs My earliest experiments coding logical graphs as dynamic “pointer” data structures taught me that conceptual and computational efficiencies of a critical sort could be achieved by generalizing their abstract graphs from trees to the variety graph theorists … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • (1) • (2) Discussion arose in the Laws Of Form Group about computational explorations of George Spencer Brown’s calculus of indications. Readers of Peirce are generally aware Spencer Brown revived certain aspects of Peirce’s logical graphs, focusing on … Continue reading →