## Differential Logic • Discussion 6

JA:
The differential proposition $\texttt{((} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{))}$ may be read as saying “change $p$ or change $q$ or both”.  And this can be recognized as just what you need to do if you happen to find yourself in the center cell and require a complete and detailed description of ways to escape it.
LA:
Is this what is new:  “you happen to find yourself in the center cell [of a Venn diagram] and require a complete and detailed description of ways to escape it”?

Dear Lyle,

What’s improved, if not entirely new, is the development of appropriate logical analogues of differential calculus and differential geometry.  There has been work on applying the calculus of finite differences to propositions, but the traditional styles of syntax are so weighed down by conceptual clutter that the resulting formal systems hardly get off the ground before they become too unwieldy to stand.

That is where the formal elegance and practical efficiency of C.S. Peirce’s logical graphs and Spencer Brown’s graphical forms come to save the day.  That, I think, is new.  Or at least it was when I began to work on it.

Regards,

Jon (the Prisoner of Vennda, No More)

### 1 Response to Differential Logic • Discussion 6

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.