Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality 3

Posted on November 1, 2023 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce’s Law • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) • (6) • (7)
Re: Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality • (1) • (2)

To see how our choice of interpretation bears on cases beyond the bare minimum let us start with the familiar example of Peirce’s law, commonly expressed in the following form.

((p \Rightarrow q) \Rightarrow p) \Rightarrow p

The following two formal equations show how Peirce’s law may be expressed in terms of logical graphs, operating under the entitative and existential interpretations, respectively.

\text{Peirce's Law} \stackrel{_\bullet}{} \text{Dual Graphs}

Peirce's Law • Dual Graphs

cc: FB | Logical Graphs • Laws of Form • Mathstodon • Academia.edu
cc: Conceptual Graphs • Cybernetics • Structural Modeling • Systems 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, Interpretive Duality, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality 3

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

  2. Pingback: Logical Graphs • Interpretive Duality 4 | 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.