Logical Graphs • Discussion 9

Re: Logical Graphs • Formal Development
Re: Laws of FormLyle Anderson

LA:
The Gestalt Switch from parenthesis to graphs is stimulating.  There are probably things in Laws of Form that we didn’t see because we were blinded by the crosses.

Lyle,

That has been my experience.  Viewing a space of mathematical objects from a new angle and changing the basis of representation can bring out new and surprising aspects of their form and even expand the field of view to novel directions of generalization.

One of the first things I learned in the early years of computing with logical graphs is how essential it is to “slip the surly bonds” of the planar embedding and work with free trees in a space of their own.

cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of FormMathstodonAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Topology, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Logical Graphs • Discussion 9

  1. Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 6 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  3. Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 7 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a comment

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