Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 16

Re: FB | SemeioticsMarius V. Constantin

Have you taken into consideration the difference between weak negation and strong negation?

I always begin classically where logic is concerned — I guess that means “strong” negation — we make a stronger start and get better mileage on that basis before we run into the specialized circumstances, mainly in computational and generalized semiotic settings, which force us to weaken our logic.

It is so-called semiotic negation, which, by the way, was an aspect, for me, in so-called resolution logic (Ch. Sanders Peirce is mentioned on that one).

I took a computer science course on resolution-unification theorem provers at U. Illinois in the mid 1980s.  If that’s the same sort of resolution, it generalizes the modus ponens inference rule, all of which exemplify implicational inference.  Peirce’s logical graphs allow a degree of equational or information-preserving inference, a fact which Spencer Brown drew out and made more clear.

cc: Category Theory • Cybernetics (1) (2)
cc: Ontolog ForumStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | SemeioticsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

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

1 Response to Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 16

  1. 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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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.