Category Archives: Peirce’s Categories

Peirce’s 1870 “Logic Of Relatives” • Discussion 1

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • John Bottoms Re: History View Blog • A Yukaghir Girl Writes A Love Letter Re: Peirce’s 1870 “Logic Of Relatives” • Proto-Graphical Syntax John Bottoms, writing in the Ontolog Forum, compared the graphic I drew for … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Differential Logic, Duality, Dyadic Relations, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Logical Matrices, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Predicate Calculus, Propositional Calculus, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Teridentity, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Overview

Posted on September 24, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

My long ago encounter with Peirce’s 1870 paper, “Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole’s Calculus of Logic”, was one of the events precipitating my return from the hazier … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Differential Logic, Duality, Dyadic Relations, Graph Theory, Group Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Logical Matrices, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Predicate Calculus, Propositional Calculus, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Teridentity, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

Abductive Inference, Concept Formation, Hypothesis Formation • 1

Posted on April 26, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

In pragmatic semiotics, concept formation like hypothesis formation falls under the heading of abductive inference.  A lot has been said and there’s a lot more to say about that, but things are too much in flux right now to allow … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Complexity, Concept Formation, Differential Calculus, Differential Logic, Dyadic Relations, Dynamical Systems, Dynamics, Geometry, Hypothesis Formation, Inference, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce's Categories, Physics, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

{ Information = Comprehension × Extension } • Discussion 17

Posted on March 15, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Joseph Simpson We are in the middle of trying to work out what Peirce has in mind with his concept of information.  He appears to have developed it from purely logical considerations — if logic can … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

{ Information = Comprehension × Extension } • Discussion 16

Posted on March 8, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ontolog Forum • Joseph Simpson To understand the purpose of Peirce’s lecture hall illustrations I think we need to consider how these sorts of expository examples come into being.  Having crafted a few myself the technique is much like … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

{ Information = Comprehension × Extension } • Discussion 15

Posted on February 28, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

I am roughly at the halfway point of my comments on Peirce’s information formula, having just finished up the link between abductive inference and iconic reference.  The discussion of induction and indexicals will follow pretty much the same pattern, though … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

{ Information = Comprehension × Extension } • Discussion 13

Posted on February 19, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Deborah G. Mayo • R.A. Fisher: “Statistical Methods and Scientific Induction” As much as I incline toward Fisher’s views over those of Neyman and Pearson, I always find these controversies driving me back to Peirce.  It’s my personal sense … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

{ Information = Comprehension × Extension } Revisited • Comment 5

Posted on February 15, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Let’s stay with Peirce’s example of abductive inference a little longer and try to clear up the more troublesome confusions that tend to arise. Figure 1 shows the implication ordering of logical terms in the form of a lattice diagram. … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

{ Information = Comprehension × Extension } Revisited • Comment 4

Posted on February 14, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Many things still puzzle me about Peirce’s account at this point.  I indicated a few of them by means of question marks at several places in the last two Figures.  There is nothing for it but returning to the text … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

{ Information = Comprehension × Extension } Revisited • Comment 3

Posted on February 13, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Peirce identifies inference with a process he describes as symbolization.  Let us consider what that might imply. I am going, next, to show that inference is symbolization and that the puzzle of the validity of scientific inference lies merely in … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Logic of Science, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments