Category Archives: Peirce

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 8

Posted on June 30, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Jeffrey Brian Downard In discussing the “combinatorial explosion” of dyadic relations that takes off in passing from a universe of two elements to a universe of three elements, I made the following observation: Looking back … Continue reading →

Posted in Combinatorics, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Tertium Quid, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 7

Posted on June 28, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Jim Willgoose Here is the series of blog posts on Chapter 3 (The Logic of Relatives) from Peirce’s 1880 “Algebra of Logic” up to the point where I left off on May Day. Preliminaries Selections … Continue reading →

Posted in Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Tertium Quid, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 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

Animated Logical Graphs • 9

Posted on May 24, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations The insight it takes to find a succinct axiom set for a theoretical domain falls under the heading of abductive or retroductive reasoning, a knack as yet refractory to computational attack, but … Continue reading →

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, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Animated Logical Graphs • 8

Posted on May 23, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations The most striking example of a “Primitive Insight Proof” (PIP❢) known to me is the Dawes–Utting proof of the Double Negation Theorem from the CSP–GSB axioms for propositional logic.  There is a … Continue reading →

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, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Animated Logical Graphs • 7

Posted on May 22, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations There are several issues of computation shape and proof style that raise their heads already at the logical ground level of boolean functions and propositional calculus.  From what I’ve seen, there are … Continue reading →

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, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Survey of Theme One Program • 1

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

This is a Survey of blog and wiki posts relating to the Theme One Program I worked on all through the 1980s.  The aim was to develop fundamental algorithms and data structures to support an integrated learning and reasoning interface, … Continue reading →

Posted in Algorithms, Animata, Artificial Intelligence, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Cognition, Computation, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Data Structures, Differential Logic, Equational Inference, Formal Languages, Graph Theory, Inquiry Driven Systems, Laws of Form, Learning Theory, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Spencer Brown, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment