Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 13

Re: Category TheoryPeiyuan ZhuHenry Story

Dear Peiyuan, Henry …

Way back during my first foundations + identity crisis I explored every alternative, deviant, non-standard version of logic and set theory I could scrape up — I remember saying to one of my professors, “How come we’re still talking about logical atoms in the quantum era?” — and he sent me off to read about quantum logics, which had apparently already fallen out of fashion at the time.  Remarkably enough, I did find one Peircean scholar who had done a lot of work on them, but they didn’t seem to be what I needed right then.

My present, still pressing applications require me to start from much more elementary grounds, stuff I can build up from boolean sources and targets, universes with coordinate spaces of type (\mathbb{B}^k, \mathbb{B}^k \to \mathbb{B}).

Regards,

Jon

cc: Category Theory • Cybernetics (1) (2)
cc: Ontolog ForumStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | SemeioticsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 13

  1. Pingback: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 14 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 1 | 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 )

Connecting to %s

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