Sign Relational Manifolds • Discussion 3

Re: FB | ParadoxologyAlex Shkotin  

I see — “sign relation” is a special term for triadic relations of some kind (with some properties);  like this:  thing in first position and thing in second position must refer to the thing in third position.  Where “refer” is an unary partial function from one thing to another.  Am I on a right direction?

Hi Alex,

It is not uncommon in practice to find a sign s having many interpretant signs i and many referent objects o.  Generally speaking, then, we start out with a sign relation L as a subset of a cartesian product L \subseteq O \times S \times I, where O, S, I are sets called the object domain, sign domain, interpretant sign domain, respectively.  A definition of a sign relation — there are a few canonical ones we find useful in practice — will specify what sort of constraint is involved in forming that subset.



cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsLaws of FormOntolog Forum
cc: FB | SemeioticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Differential Geometry, Differential Logic, Geometry, Interoperability, Logic, Manifolds, Mathematics, Riemann, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Sign Relational Manifolds • Discussion 3

  1. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3 | 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 )

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.