Re: Peirce List • Robert Marty
- Thank you for reminding me of the definition of a group that I have taught for 45 years … I think you work with the permutations of symmetrical groups that do not fit well with the interdependence of categories and which make us go out of the Peircian theory, which is not forbidden as long as we point it out. I’ll look at the use you make of them when you’ve answered my previous questions with something other than a stream of links and the definition of a group! (my Ph.D. Math is on Abelian Groups) … formulating my questions correctly takes me time, especially to grasp your thought … I would like a reciprocal … I always thought that you had the capacity to do it without giving up your certainties, but I must say that today I am disappointed …
Auld acquaintance is not forgot 🍻 I will convey your thanks to one who reminded me.
My reason for encoring mathematical groups as a class of triadic relations and elsewhere casting divisibility in the role of a dyadic relation was not so much for their own sakes as for the critical exercise my English Lit teachers used to style as “Compare and Contrast”. For the sake of our immediate engagement, then, we tackle that exercise all the better to highlight the distinctive qualities of triadic relations and sign relations.
A critical point of the comparison is to grasp sign relations as collections of ordered triples — collections endowed with collective properties extending well beyond the properties of individual triples and their components.
cc: Category Theory • Cybernetics (1) (2)
cc: Ontolog Forum • Structural Modeling • Systems Science
cc: FB | Semeiotics • Laws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Pingback: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 10 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 2 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry