Category Archives: C.S. Peirce

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 12

Posted on July 7, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien Definitions and examples for relation composition and the two most commonly arising types of relation reduction can be found in the following articles. Relation Composition Relation Reduction A previous post on this thread gives … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Control, Cybernetics, Dyadic Relations, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems Theory, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 11

Posted on July 6, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien Cf: Relation Reduction • Examples of Projectively Reducible Relations I constructed the “Ann and Bob” examples of sign relations back at the beginning of my Systems Engineering program when I had to explain how … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Control, Cybernetics, Dyadic Relations, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems Theory, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Inquiry, Signs, Relations • 1

Posted on July 5, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Michael Harris • A Non-Logical Cognitive Phenomenon Human spontaneous non-demonstrative inference is not, overall, a logical process.  Hypothesis formation involves the use of deductive rules, but is not totally governed by them;  hypothesis confirmation is a non-logical cognitive phenomenon:  … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Action, Analogy, C.S. Peirce, Cognition, Cognitive Science, Communication, Deduction, Foundations of Mathematics, Induction, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Michael Harris, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mathematics, Philosophy of Science, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Relevance, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 10

Posted on July 2, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Helmut Raulien The facts about relational reducibility are relatively easy to understand and I included links to relevant discussions in my earlier survey of relation theory. The following article discusses relational reducibility and irreducibility in … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Combinatorics, Dyadic Relations, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Tertium Quid, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 9

Posted on July 2, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Jeffrey Brian Downard In viewing the structures of relation spaces, even the smallest dyadic cases we’ve been exploring so far, no one need feel nonplussed at the lack of obviousness in this domain.  Anyone who … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Combinatorics, Dyadic Relations, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Tertium Quid, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 6

Posted on June 19, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Helmut Raulien In discussing Peirce’s concept of a triadic sign relation as existing among objects, signs, and interpretant signs the question arises whether any of the classes so related are classes by themselves, that is, … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Tertium Quid, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Signs Of Signs • 4

Posted on May 31, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Michael Harris • Language About Language But then inevitably I find myself wondering whether a proof assistant, or even a formal system, can make the distinction between “technical” and “fundamental” questions.  There seems to be no logical distinction.  The … Continue reading →

Posted in Aesthetics, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Coherentism, Communication, Connotation, Form, Formal Languages, Foundations of Mathematics, Higher Order Propositions, Illusion, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Mathematics, Objective Frameworks, Objectivism, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatics, Pragmatism, Recursion, Reflection, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Translation, Triadic Relations, Type Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Signs Of Signs • 3

Posted on May 27, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Michael Harris • Language About Language And if we don’t [keep our stories straight], who puts us away? One’s answer, or at least one’s initial response to that question will turn on how one feels about formal realities.  As … Continue reading →

Posted in Aesthetics, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Coherentism, Communication, Connotation, Form, Formal Languages, Foundations of Mathematics, Higher Order Propositions, Illusion, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Mathematics, Objective Frameworks, Objectivism, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatics, Pragmatism, Recursion, Reflection, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Translation, Triadic Relations, Type Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Signs Of Signs • 2

Posted on May 27, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Michael Harris • Language About Language I compared mathematics to a “consensual hallucination,” like virtual reality, and I continue to believe that the aim is to get (consensually) to the point where that hallucination is a second nature. I … Continue reading →

Posted in Aesthetics, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Coherentism, Communication, Connotation, Form, Formal Languages, Foundations of Mathematics, Higher Order Propositions, Illusion, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Mathematics, Objective Frameworks, Objectivism, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatics, Pragmatism, Recursion, Reflection, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Translation, Triadic Relations, Type Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Signs Of Signs • 1

Posted on May 27, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Michael Harris • Language About Language There is a language and a corresponding literature treating logic and mathematics as related species of communication and information gathering, namely, the pragmatic‑semiotic tradition transmitted through the lifelong efforts of C.S. Peirce.  It is … Continue reading →

Posted in Aesthetics, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Coherentism, Communication, Connotation, Form, Formal Languages, Foundations of Mathematics, Higher Order Propositions, Illusion, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Mathematics, Objective Frameworks, Objectivism, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatics, Pragmatism, Recursion, Reflection, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Translation, Triadic Relations, Type Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment