Definition and Determination : 15

Re: Ontolog Forum Discussion

In some early math course I learned a fourfold scheme of Primitives (undefined terms), Definitions, Axioms, and Inference Rules.  But later excursions tended to run the axioms and definitions together, speaking for example of mathematical objects like geometries, graphs, groups, topologies, etc. ad infinitum as defined by so many axioms.  And later still I learned correspondences between axioms and inference rules that blurred even that line, making the distinction appear more a matter of application and interpretation than set in stone.

Be that as it may, the important theme running through all the variations remains whether the formal system inaugurated by whatever ritual is a system of consequence or not, whether and how well it determines a category of mathematical objects and, if you bear an applied mind, whether those objects serve the end of understanding the reality that does not cease to press on us.

Resource

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Comprehension, Constraint, Definition, Determination, Extension, Form, Geometry, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Information, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Ontology, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Structure, Theorem Proving, Topology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Definition and Determination : 15

  1. Pingback: Definition and Determination : 16 | 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 )

w

Connecting to %s