Category Archives: Triadic Relation Irreducibility

Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 9

Re: Pragmatic Maxim Re: Academia.edu • Milo Gardner MG: Do you agree that Peirce was limited to bivalent logic? Taking classical logic as a basis for reasoning is no more limiting than taking Dedekind cuts as a basis for constructing … Continue reading

Posted in Automata, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Compositionality, Formal Languages, Inference, Information, Information Fusion, Initiative, Inquiry, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Triadic Relation Irreducibility, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 8

Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 7 Re: Academia.edu • Milo Gardner MG: Peirce sensed that bivalent syntax was superceded by trivalent syntax, but never resolved that nagging question. The main thing is not a question of syntax but a … Continue reading

Posted in Automata, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Compositionality, Formal Languages, Inference, Information, Information Fusion, Initiative, Inquiry, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Triadic Relation Irreducibility, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 7

Dan Everett has prompted a number of discussions on Facebook recently which touch on core issues in Peirce’s thought — but threads ravel on and fray so quickly in that medium one rarely gets a chance to fill out the … Continue reading

Posted in Automata, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Compositionality, Formal Languages, Inference, Information, Information Fusion, Initiative, Inquiry, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Triadic Relation Irreducibility, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments