Inquiry Into Inquiry

Frankl, My Dear • 10

Posted on November 4, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

(5)

Figure 5 shows the 14 terms of the difference map $\mathrm{D}f$ as arcs, arrows, or directed edges in the venn diagram of the original proposition $f(p, q, r) = pqr.$ The arcs of $\mathrm{E}f$ are directed into the cell where $f$ is true from each of the other cells. The arcs of $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ are directed from the cell where $f$ is true into each of the other cells.

The expansion of $\mathrm{D}f$ computed in the previous post is shown again below with the terms arranged by number of positive differential features, from lowest to highest.

$\begin{array}{*{4}{l}} \multicolumn{4}{l}{\mathrm{D}f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) =} \\[10pt] & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~~} q \texttt{~~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & \texttt{(} p \texttt{)~} q \texttt{~~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} \\[10pt] + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~~} q \texttt{~~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{)~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} \\[10pt] + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~~} q \texttt{~~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} & + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~~} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{)} \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} \end{array}$

$\begin{array}{*{4}{l}} + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~~} q \texttt{~~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & \texttt{(} p \texttt{)(} q \texttt{)~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} \\[10pt] + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~~} q \texttt{~~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} & + & \texttt{(} p \texttt{)~} q \texttt{~(} r \texttt{)} \cdot \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} \\[10pt] + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~~} q \texttt{~~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} & + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~(} q \texttt{)(} r \texttt{)} \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} \\[10pt] + & \texttt{~} p \texttt{~~} q \texttt{~~} r \texttt{~} \cdot \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} & + & \texttt{(} p \texttt{)(} q \texttt{)(} r \texttt{)} \cdot \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} \end{array}$

To be continued …

Resources

Posted in Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, Computational Complexity, Differential Logic, Frankl Conjecture, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Péter Frankl | Tagged Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, Computational Complexity, Differential Logic, Frankl Conjecture, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Péter Frankl | 11 Comments

Frankl, My Dear • 9

Posted on November 3, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

“It doesn’t matter what one does,” the Man Without Qualities said to himself, shrugging his shoulders. “In a tangle of forces like this it doesn’t make a scrap of difference.” He turned away like a man who has learned renunciation, almost indeed like a sick man who shrinks from any intensity of contact. And then, striding through his adjacent dressing-room, he passed a punching-ball that hung there; he gave it a blow far swifter and harder than is usual in moods of resignation or states of weakness.

Robert Musil • The Man Without Qualities

Re: Dick Lipton & Ken Regan • (1) • (2)

We continue with the differential analysis of the proposition in Example 1.

Example 1

(1)

The difference operator $\mathrm{D}$ is defined as the difference $\mathrm{E} - \boldsymbol\varepsilon$ between the enlargement operator $\mathrm{E}$ and the tacit extension operator $\boldsymbol\varepsilon.$

The difference map $\mathrm{D}f$ is the result of applying the difference operator $\mathrm{D}$ to the function $f.$ When the sense is clear, we may refer to $\mathrm{D}f$ simply as the difference of $f.$

In boolean spaces there is no difference between the sum $(+)$ and the difference $(-)$ so the difference operator $\mathrm{D}$ is equally well expressed as the exclusive disjunction or symmetric difference $\mathrm{E} + \boldsymbol\varepsilon.$ In this case the difference map $\mathrm{D}f$ can be computed according to the formula $\mathrm{D}f = (\mathrm{E} + \boldsymbol\varepsilon)f = \mathrm{E}f + \boldsymbol\varepsilon f.$

The action of $\mathrm{D}$ on our present example, $f(p, q, r) = pqr,$ can be computed from the data on hand according to the following prescription.

The enlargement map $\mathrm{E}f,$ computed in Post 5 and graphed in Post 6, is shown again here:

$\mathrm{E}f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) =$

$\begin{smallmatrix} & p q r \,\cdot\, \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & p q \texttt{(} r \texttt{)} \,\cdot\, \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)} \mathrm{d}r & + & p \texttt{(} q \texttt{)} r \,\cdot\, \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & p \texttt{(} q \texttt{)(} r \texttt{)} \,\cdot\, \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)} \mathrm{d}q \, \mathrm{d}r \\[4pt] + & \texttt{(} p \texttt{)} q r \,\cdot\, \mathrm{d}p \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & \texttt{(} p \texttt{)} q \texttt{(} r \texttt{)} \,\cdot\, \mathrm{d}p \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)} \mathrm{d}r & + & \texttt{(} p \texttt{)(} q \texttt{)} r \,\cdot\, \mathrm{d}p \, \mathrm{d}q \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & \texttt{(} p \texttt{)(} q \texttt{)(} r \texttt{)} \,\cdot\, \mathrm{d}p \, \mathrm{d}q \, \mathrm{d}r \end{smallmatrix}$

The tacit extension $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f,$ computed in Post 7 and graphed in Post 8, is shown again here:

$\boldsymbol\varepsilon f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) =$

$\begin{array}{*{8}{l}} & p q r ~ \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & p q r ~ \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} & + & p q r ~ \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & p q r ~ \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} \\[4pt] + & p q r ~ \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & p q r ~ \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} & + & p q r ~ \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} & + & p q r ~ \texttt{~} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{~~} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{~} \end{array}$

The difference map $\mathrm{D}f$ is the sum of the enlargement map $\mathrm{E}f$ and the tacit extension $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f.$

Here we adopt a paradigm of computation for $\mathrm{D}f$ that aids not only in organizing the stages of the work but also in highlighting the diverse facets of logical meaning that may be read off the result.

The terms of the enlargement map $\mathrm{E}f$ are obtained from the table below by multiplying the base factor at the head of each column by the differential factor that appears beneath it in the body of the table.

The terms of the tacit extension $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ are obtained from the next table below by multiplying the base factor at the head of the first column by each of the differential factors that appear beneath it in the body of the table.

Finally, the terms of the difference map $\mathrm{D}f$ are obtained by overlaying the displays for $\mathrm{E}f$ and $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ and taking their boolean sum entry by entry.

Notice that the “loop” or “no change” term $p q r \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)}$ cancels out, leaving 14 terms in the end.

To be continued …

Resources

Frankl, My Dear • 8

Posted on October 30, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Dick Lipton & Ken Regan • (1) • (2)

(4)

Figure 4 shows the eight terms of the tacit extension $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ as arcs, arrows, or directed edges in the venn diagram of the original proposition $f(p, q, r) = pqr.$ Each term of the tacit extension $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ corresponds to an arc that starts from the cell where $f$ is true and ends in one of the eight cells of the venn diagram.

For ease of reference, here is the expansion of $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ from the previous post:

$\boldsymbol\varepsilon f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) =$

Two examples suffice to convey the general idea of the extended venn diagram:

The term $pqr \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)}$ is shown as a looped arc starting in the cell where $pqr$ is true and returning back to it. The differential factor $\texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)}$ corresponds to the fact that the arc crosses no logical feature boundaries from its source to its target.
The term $pqr \cdot \mathrm{d}p \; \mathrm{d}q \, \mathrm{d}r$ is shown as an arc going from the cell where $pqr$ is true to the cell where $\texttt{(} p \texttt{)(} q \texttt{)(} r \texttt{)}$ is true. The differential factor $\mathrm{d}p \; \mathrm{d}q \, \mathrm{d}r$ corresponds to the fact that the arc crosses all three logical feature boundaries from its source to its target.

To be continued …

Resources

Frankl, My Dear • 7

Posted on October 29, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Dick Lipton & Ken Regan • (1) • (2)

We continue with the differential analysis of the proposition in Example 1.

Example 1

(1)

A proposition defined on one universe of discourse has natural extensions to larger universes of discourse. As a matter of course in a given context of discussion, some of these extensions come to be taken for granted as the most natural extensions to make in passing from one universe to the next and they tend to be assumed automatically, by default, in the absence of explicit notice to the contrary. These are the tacit extensions that apply in that context.

Differential logic, at the first order of analysis, treats extensions from boolean spaces of type $\mathbb{B}^k$ to enlarged boolean spaces of type $\mathbb{B}^k \times \mathbb{D}^k.$ In this setting $\mathbb{B} \cong \mathbb{D} \cong \{ 0, 1 \}$ but we use different letters merely to distinguish base and differential features.

In our present example, the tacit extension $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ of $f$ is the boolean function $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f : \mathbb{B}^3 \times \mathbb{D}^3 \to \mathbb{B}$ defined by the following equation:

$\boldsymbol\varepsilon f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) ~=~ f(p, q, r).$

The boolean expansion of $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ takes the following form:

$\boldsymbol\varepsilon f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) =$

In other words, $\boldsymbol\varepsilon f$ is simply $f$ on the base variables $p, q, r$ extended by a tautology — commonly known as a “Don’t Care” condition — on the differential variables $\mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r.$

To be continued …

Resources

Frankl, My Dear • 6

Posted on October 27, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Dick Lipton & Ken Regan • (1) • (2)

(3)

Figure 3 shows the eight terms of the enlarged proposition $\mathrm{E}f$ as arcs, arrows, or directed edges in the venn diagram of the original proposition $f(p, q, r) = pqr.$ Each term of the enlargement $\mathrm{E}f$ corresponds to an arc into the cell where $f$ is true from one of the eight cells of the venn diagram.

For ease of reference, here is the expansion of $\mathrm{E}f$ from the previous post:

$\mathrm{E}f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) =$

Two examples suffice to convey the general idea of the enlarged venn diagram:

The term $p q r \cdot \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)}$ is shown as a looped arc starting in the cell where $p q r$ is true and returning back to it. The differential factor $\texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)}$ corresponds to the fact that the arc crosses no logical feature boundaries from its source to its target.
The term $\texttt{(} p \texttt{)(} q \texttt{)(} r \texttt{)} \cdot \mathrm{d}p \, \mathrm{d}q \, \mathrm{d}r$ is shown as an arc from the cell where $\texttt{(} p \texttt{)(} q \texttt{)(} r \texttt{)}$ is true to the cell where $p q r$ is true. The differential factor $\mathrm{d}p \, \mathrm{d}q \, \mathrm{d}r$ corresponds to the fact that the arc crosses all three logical feature boundaries from its source to its target.

To be continued …

Resources

Frankl, My Dear • 5

Posted on October 23, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Dick Lipton & Ken Regan • (1) • (2)

Putting all thought of the Frankl Conjecture out of our minds for the moment, let’s return to the proposition in Example 1 and work through its differential analysis from scratch.

Example 1

(1)

Consider the proposition $p \land q \land r,$ in boolean terms the function $f : \mathbb{B}^3 \to \mathbb{B}$ such that $f(p, q, r) = pqr,$ as illustrated by the venn diagram in Figure 1.

The enlargement $\mathrm{E}f$ of $f$ is the boolean function $\mathrm{E}f : \mathbb{B}^3 \times \mathbb{D}^3 \to \mathbb{B}$ defined by the following equation:

$\mathrm{E}f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) ~=~ f(p + \mathrm{d}p, q + \mathrm{d}q, r + \mathrm{d}r).$

Given that $f$ is the boolean product of its three arguments, $\mathrm{E}f$ may be written as follows:

$\mathrm{E}f ~=~ (p + \mathrm{d}p)(q + \mathrm{d}q)(r + \mathrm{d}r).$

Difficulties of notation in differential logic are greatly eased by introducing the family of minimal negation operators on finite numbers of boolean variables. For our immediate purposes we need only the minimal negation operators on one and two variables.

The minimal negation operator on one variable $x$ is notated with monospace parentheses as $\texttt{(} x \texttt{)}$ and is simply another notation for the logical negation $\lnot x.$
The minimal negation operator on two variables $x, y$ is notated with monospace delimiters as $\texttt{(} x \texttt{,} y \texttt{)}$ and is simply another notation for the exclusive disjunction $x + y.$

In this notation the previous expression for $\mathrm{E}f$ takes the following form:

$\mathrm{E}f ~=~ \texttt{(} p \texttt{,} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} q \texttt{,} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} r \texttt{,} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)}.$

A canonical form for $\mathrm{E}f$ may be derived by means of a boolean expansion, in effect, a case analysis that evaluates $\mathrm{E}f$ at each triple of values for the base variables $p, q, r$ and forms the disjunction of the partial evaluations. Each term of the boolean expansion corresponds to a cell of the venn diagram and is formed by multiplying the value of that cell by a coefficient that amounts to the value of $\mathrm{E}f$ on that cell.

For example, in the case $pqr$ where all three base variables are true, the corresponding coefficient is computed as follows:

$\begin{array}{lll} \mathrm{E}f(1, 1, 1, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) & = & (1 + \mathrm{d}p)(1 + \mathrm{d}q)(1 + \mathrm{d}r) \\[4pt] & = & \lnot\mathrm{d}p \land \lnot\mathrm{d}q \land \lnot\mathrm{d}r \\[4pt] & = & \texttt{(} \mathrm{d}p \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}q \texttt{)(} \mathrm{d}r \texttt{)} \end{array}$

Collecting the cases yields the boolean expansion of $\mathrm{E}f$ via the following computation:

Step 1

$\mathrm{E}f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) =$

$\begin{smallmatrix} & p q r \cdot f(1 + \mathrm{d}p, 1 + \mathrm{d}q, 1 + \mathrm{d}r) & + & p q \tilde{r} \cdot f(1 + \mathrm{d}p, 1 + \mathrm{d}q, 0 + \mathrm{d}r) & + & p \tilde{q} r \cdot f(1 + \mathrm{d}p, 0 + \mathrm{d}q, 1 + \mathrm{d}r) & + & p \tilde{q} \tilde{r} \cdot f(1 + \mathrm{d}p, 0 + \mathrm{d}q, 0 + \mathrm{d}q) \\[4pt] + & \tilde{p} q r \cdot f(0 + \mathrm{d}p, 1 + \mathrm{d}q, 1 + \mathrm{d}r) & + & \tilde{p} q \tilde{r} \cdot f(0 + \mathrm{d}p, 1 + \mathrm{d}q, 0 + \mathrm{d}r) & + & \tilde{p} \tilde{q} r \cdot f(0 + \mathrm{d}p, 0 + \mathrm{d}q, 1 + \mathrm{d}r) & + & \tilde{p} \tilde{q} \tilde{r} \cdot f(0 + \mathrm{d}p, 0 + \mathrm{d}q, 0 + \mathrm{d}q) \end{smallmatrix}$

Step 2

$\mathrm{E}f(p, q, r, \mathrm{d}p, \mathrm{d}q, \mathrm{d}r) =$

To be continued …

Resources

Semiotic Theory Of Information • 6

Posted on October 14, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

2014 Oct 14

Through the 1970s I gradually recovered from my early traumas with Fortran, and with the aid of more symbol-friendly programming languages like Lisp and Pascal began to play around again with implementing simple forms of graphical calculi inspired by Peirce and Spencer-Brown in the form of programs that carried out the requisite transformations in automatic or guided interactive fashions.

Experiments like these, moving from scribblings on paper to algorithms and data structures in electronic media, brought about a transformation in my perspective on symbolic logic and other semiotic processes. The shift was very gradual over the decade that followed, but I think it began with thinking of computer memory as very like a sheet of paper, a tabula rasa, or a Sheet of Assertion as Peirce dubbed the unmarked state in his systems of logical graphs.

Thinking this way naturally brings out the system-theoretic aspects of semiosis in general and logic in particular. One begins with sign relations as subsets of cartesian products ${O \times S \times I},$ where ${O, S, I}$ are sets of objects, signs, and interpretant signs, respectively, and over time one begins to see dynamic systems in place of those sets. Then one day in the mid 1980s I distinctly remember flashing on the fact that the graph-theoretic data structures I and my programs were manipulating in memory were actually diagrams in Peirce’s sense.

With that pre-ramble, here is a bit of background from (Awbrey & Awbrey, 1990) that describes our system-theoretic approach to agents with a capacity for learning and reasoning.

The State Space Approach to Intelligent Systems

The common definition of a system as a list of variables is useful but not absolute. It characterizes the system only as measured from a particular frame of observation. The property of a system that we really care about is its state space, or a representation showing the possible states of a system. When considering systems that exhibit complex sets of properties, such as being able to transform information and to act with intelligent purpose, it becomes more difficult to specify in advance the exact nature of the state space, or even whether a space exists that satisfies a given set of specifications. Therefore we do not consider the state space of intelligent systems to be given absolutely, as the subset of some predefined space (like ${\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ ), but defined provisionally, subject to a list of constraints and subject to revision.

When considering intelligent behavior, we are most interested in the state of information that an interpreter system has about an object system, and this information has its expression in a system of signs. The characterizations sign, object, interpreter are not so much exclusive categories of entities as roles that systems may play within the so-called sign relation. Although interested in the nature and relations of these systems in themselves, whatever we can say about them takes place within the domain of signs. As we use the words, sign is the general category, while symbol is a particular type of sign. From the pragmatic point of view, almost all the actual work of computation is involved with transformations between expressions in the symbolic domain.

(Awbrey & Awbrey, 1990)

To be continued …

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Pragmatic Information, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged C.S. Peirce, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Pragmatic Information, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | 13 Comments

Semiotic Theory Of Information • 5

Posted on October 14, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

2014 Oct 09

I will continue assembling an assortment of background materials and links to other resources that I think are useful in understanding Peirce’s notion of information and how it has the potential to extend and generalize both our intuitive notions of information and the more or less formalized theories of information that have become standard in contemporary scientific practice.

The next bit of background material I wanted to add to the account is the perspective on signs and information that Susan Awbrey and I outlined in the paper we gave at a Society for Applied Learning Technology conference in 1990.

Information as a Matter of Form, Not a Form of Matter

Information is the property of a message or sign by virtue of which it can reduce the uncertainty of an interpreter about the state of an object. This property has the alternate aspect of acting to increase the control of an interpreter with respect to achieving a goal.

In Aristotle’s Psychology [1], two important distinctions were drawn which we would like to adapt to our discussion of information.

First, he distinguished form and matter, saying that matter is the potentiality, while form is the actuality of the mind. Although it combines both, the essential nature of the mind is found in its form. Applied to the mind in its aspect of information processing system, this proposition foreshadows a point that was often emphasized at the beginning of the information revolution, that information is a formal entity, not a material one.

Next, Aristotle drew a distinction between the possession and the exercise of knowledge. A corresponding distinction may be drawn between the information that a system possesses by virtue of being in a certain state and the information that a self-informed or intelligent system may exercise with respect to its own states. It is not a distinction in the kind or essence of information, but a pragmatic difference in the role a system plays within the relation of sign, object, and interpreter. In the first case, the state of a system serves as a sign to others, reducing the uncertainty of these interpreters about the state of an object system. In the second case, the state of a system serves as information to itself in its role as interpreter. This is one of the marks of an intelligent system.

Reference

Aristotle, “On the Soul” (De Anima), W.S. Hett (trans.), in Aristotle, Volume 8, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, 1986.

(Awbrey & Awbrey, 1990)

I continued to make use of the frame introduced in Aristotle’s sketch of the soul in my work on Inquiry Driven Systems, for instance, here:

Inquiry Driven Systems • The Formative Tension

To be continued …

Semiotic Theory Of Information • 4

Posted on October 13, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

2014 Oct 08

“Let us now return to the information.” To coin a phrase. This time around we come to Peirce’s notion of information in a critical and recurring passage that Frederik Stjernfelt takes as the next stepping stone from propositions through dicisigns to the information they convey:

This maybe surprising definition of the Dicisign is closely connected, however, to the basic function of the Dicisign, namely to convey information — to relay claims, assert statements, true or false. Only by separately indicating an object does it become possible for a sign to convey information about that object, correctly or not:

“… the essential nature of the Dicisign, in general, that is, the kind of sign that conveys information, in contradistinction to a sign from which information may be derived. The readiest characteristic test showing whether a sign is a Dicisign or not, is that a Dicisign is either true or false, but does not directly furnish reasons for its being so.” (Syllabus, 1903, EP2, 276).

(Frederik Stjernfelt, Natural Propositions, 54)

In working through the argument of this series of texts I found it worth my trouble to copy out a longer excerpt from the 1903 Syllabus to my blog:

C.S. Peirce • Syllabus • Selection 2

To be continued …

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Frederik Stjernfelt, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Kaina Stoicheia, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Pragmatic Information, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged C.S. Peirce, Frederik Stjernfelt, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Kaina Stoicheia, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Pragmatic Information, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | 12 Comments

Semiotic Theory Of Information • 3

Posted on October 12, 2014 by Jon Awbrey

2014 Oct 08

Re: Resources On Peircean Information Theory • (1) • (2)

In trying to remember why I started this thread, I traced it back to the point when various notions of information came up in Chapter 3.3 of Frederik Stjernfelt’s Natural Propositions.

So let us review …

First we have the eureka moment in Kaina Stoicheia where Peirce declares a “true definition of a proposition”, namely, “A proposition is a sign which separately, or independently, indicates its object.” And we know that Peirce attaches the label of a “Dicisign” to the definiens of that definition.

3.3. Dicisigns : Signs Separately Indicating Their Object

True to Peirce’s general way of investigating sign types, he describes Dicisigns compositionally, functionally, and systematically. As Hilpinen (1992) says, Peirce’s recurrent and “standard” definition of Dicisigns is given in the following italicized passage from “Kaina stoicheia”:

“It is remarkable that while neither a pure icon or a pure index can assert anything, an index which forces something to be an icon, as a weathercock does, or which forces us to regard it as an icon, as the legend under the portrait does, does make an assertion, and forms a proposition. This suggests a true definition of a proposition, which is a question in much dispute at the moment. A proposition is a sign which separately, or independently, indicates its object.” (EP2, 307, emphasis Hilpinen’s)

(Frederik Stjernfelt, Natural Propositions, 53–54)

To be continued …

Search for:
Elsewhere
- Jon Awbrey • Academia.edu
- Jon Awbrey • Arisbe List
- Jon Awbrey • Inquiry List
- Jon Awbrey • InterSciWiki
- Jon Awbrey • Mathstodon
- Jon Awbrey • MyWikiBiz
- Jon Awbrey • Oeis Wiki
- Jon Awbrey • PlanetMath
- Jon Awbrey • ResearchGate
- Jon Awbrey • WordPress
Blogroll
- A-Philosopher's Chair
- Autopoiesis
- Azimuth Blog
- Azimuth Forum
- Badass Teachers
- Big Education Ape
- Bob Walters
- Cameron Counts
- Cathy O'Neil
- Chorasimilarity
- Christopher Chase
- Coevolving Innovations
- Computational Complexity
- Computational Culture
- Cora Angier Sowa
- Cory Doctorow
- Crazy Crawfish
- Curmudgucation
- David Ellerman
- David Wood
- Devlin's Angle
- Diana Senechal
- Diane Ravitch
- Drew Flieder
- Error Statistics Philosophy
- Evolution Games
- Fred Klonsky
- Gödel's Lost Letter • New
- Gödel's Lost Letter • Old
- Gil Kalai
- Hidden Assumptions
- Hieroglyph Blog
- https://drewflieder.xyz/
- Humanities & Sciences
- Improbable Science
- In Theory
- Inquire Within
- Joel David Hamkins
- John F. Sowa
- John Pappas
- Judea Pearl • Causality
- Julien Clément
- Len Troncale • LifeWork
- Logic Matters
- London Institute∫Mathematical Sciences
- Lou Kauffman
- Luciano Floridi
- Lumber Room
- Marcus Jenal
- Mark Johnson
- Markability
- Mathematics & Computation
- Mathematics w\o Apologies
- Mercedes Schneider
- Michael O. Church
- Michael Weiss
- Michigan Populist
- Nicole Rust
- Nora Bateson
- Not Even Wrong
- Peirce Blog
- Peirce Reader
- Persiflage
- Philosophasters
- Poetry ∩ Math
- Poor Richard
- Pragmata
- Preposterous Universe
- Progressive Populist
- Punk Rock OR
- Quantum of Explanation
- Quomodocumque
- Renaissance Mathematicus
- Rice History Corner
- Richard E. Haskell
- Richard Zach
- Robert Marty
- Scott Aaronson
- Shtetl-Optimized
- Social Fixer
- Tambo University
- Tanya Khovanova
- The Becoming Radical
- The Chalk Face
- The Cutting Edge
- The Progressive
- Theodora Goss
- Theorem Du Jour
- Thorbjørn Mann
- Tim Gowers
- Topos Institute
- Understanding Uncertainty
- Useful Stuff
- Wikispaces Blog
- Windows On Theory
Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:
Recent Posts
- Differential Logic • 8
- Differential Logic • 7
- Differential Logic • 6
- Differential Logic • 5
- Differential Logic • 4
- Differential Logic • 3
- Differential Logic • 2
- Differential Logic • 1
- Differential Logic • Overview
- Sign Relations • Graphical Representations
- Riffs and Rotes • Happy New Year 2026
- Sign Relations • Semiotic Equivalence Relations 2
- Sign Relations • Semiotic Equivalence Relations 1
- Sign Relations • Ennotation
- Sign Relations • Connotation
- Sign Relations • Denotation
- Sign Relations • Dyadic Aspects
- Sign Relations • Examples
- Sign Relations • Signs and Inquiry
- Sign Relations • Definition
- Sign Relations • Anthesis
- Cactus Language • Semantics 8
- Cactus Language • Semantics 7
- Cactus Language • Semantics 6
- Cactus Language • Semantics 5
- Cactus Language • Semantics 4
- Cactus Language • Semantics 3
- Cactus Language • Semantics 2
- Cactus Language • Semantics 1
- Cactus Language • Mechanics 5
- Cactus Language • Mechanics 4
- Cactus Language • Mechanics 3
- Cactus Language • Mechanics 2
- Cactus Language • Discussion 3
- Cactus Language • Mechanics 1
- Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 20
- Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 19
- Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 18
- Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 17
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 16
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 15
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 14
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 13
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 12
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 11
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 10
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 9
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 8
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 7
- Cactus Language • Pragmatics 6

	Survey of Differenti… on Differential Logic • 8
	Differential Logic •… on Survey of Animated Logical Gra…
	Differential Logic •… on Survey of Differential Logic •…
	Differential Logic •… on Logic Syllabus
	Differential Logic •… on Survey of Animated Logical Gra…
	Differential Logic •… on Survey of Differential Logic •…
	Differential Logic •… on Logic Syllabus
	Survey of Differenti… on Differential Logic • 7
	Differential Logic •… on Survey of Animated Logical Gra…
	Differential Logic •… on Survey of Differential Logic •…

Archives
- February 2026 (9)
- January 2026 (2)
- December 2025 (10)
- November 2025 (1)
- October 2025 (8)
- September 2025 (8)
- August 2025 (11)
- July 2025 (14)
- June 2025 (12)
- May 2025 (22)
- April 2025 (8)
- March 2025 (11)
- February 2025 (10)
- January 2025 (10)
- December 2024 (35)
- November 2024 (20)
- October 2024 (16)
- September 2024 (24)
- August 2024 (10)
- July 2024 (15)
- June 2024 (18)
- May 2024 (26)
- April 2024 (24)
- March 2024 (18)
- February 2024 (25)
- January 2024 (12)
- December 2023 (24)
- November 2023 (18)
- October 2023 (18)
- September 2023 (10)
- August 2023 (9)
- July 2023 (17)
- June 2023 (18)
- May 2023 (8)
- April 2023 (14)
- March 2023 (3)
- February 2023 (1)
- January 2023 (8)
- December 2022 (2)
- November 2022 (8)
- October 2022 (4)
- September 2022 (10)
- August 2022 (14)
- July 2022 (18)
- June 2022 (14)
- May 2022 (12)
- April 2022 (13)
- March 2022 (1)
- February 2022 (2)
- January 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (4)
- November 2021 (15)
- October 2021 (20)
- September 2021 (18)
- August 2021 (22)
- July 2021 (28)
- June 2021 (18)
- May 2021 (17)
- April 2021 (13)
- March 2021 (14)
- February 2021 (12)
- January 2021 (12)
- December 2020 (10)
- November 2020 (12)
- October 2020 (8)
- September 2020 (10)
- August 2020 (14)
- July 2020 (10)
- June 2020 (20)
- May 2020 (15)
- April 2020 (11)
- March 2020 (16)
- February 2020 (7)
- January 2020 (6)
- December 2019 (12)
- November 2019 (18)
- October 2019 (21)
- September 2019 (10)
- August 2019 (5)
- July 2019 (12)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (6)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (14)
- January 2019 (13)
- December 2018 (12)
- November 2018 (1)
- October 2018 (6)
- September 2018 (9)
- August 2018 (8)
- July 2018 (3)
- June 2018 (14)
- May 2018 (8)
- April 2018 (6)
- March 2018 (6)
- February 2018 (9)
- January 2018 (11)
- December 2017 (4)
- November 2017 (12)
- October 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (6)
- August 2017 (10)
- July 2017 (9)
- June 2017 (14)
- May 2017 (8)
- April 2017 (18)
- March 2017 (14)
- February 2017 (3)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (11)
- October 2016 (1)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (15)
- April 2016 (14)
- March 2016 (22)
- February 2016 (12)
- January 2016 (3)
- December 2015 (7)
- November 2015 (2)
- October 2015 (9)
- September 2015 (24)
- August 2015 (9)
- July 2015 (9)
- June 2015 (6)
- May 2015 (15)
- April 2015 (5)
- March 2015 (7)
- February 2015 (14)
- January 2015 (7)
- December 2014 (2)
- November 2014 (6)
- October 2014 (12)
- September 2014 (8)
- August 2014 (7)
- July 2014 (3)
- June 2014 (12)
- May 2014 (16)
- April 2014 (12)
- March 2014 (8)
- February 2014 (17)
- January 2014 (12)
- December 2013 (10)
- November 2013 (12)
- October 2013 (5)
- September 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (5)
- July 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (5)
- May 2013 (9)
- April 2013 (9)
- March 2013 (7)
- February 2013 (8)
- January 2013 (10)
- December 2012 (14)
- November 2012 (5)
- October 2012 (14)
- September 2012 (5)
- August 2012 (8)
- July 2012 (3)
- June 2012 (14)
- May 2012 (9)
- April 2012 (4)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (4)
- January 2012 (1)
- December 2011 (2)
- October 2008 (2)
- September 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (4)
- December 2005 (1)
Blog Stats
- 1,746,428 hits
February 2026

M T W T F S S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

« Jan
Categories
- Abduction
- Abraham Lincoln
- Abstraction
- Absurdity
- Accountability
- Ackermann
- Acronym
- Action
- Adaptability
- Adaptive Systems
- Aesthetics
- Albert Camus
- Algebra
- Algebra of Logic
- Algorithms
- Amphecks
- Analogy
- Analytic Geometry
- Anamnesis
- Animata
- Annual Report
- Anthem
- Anthematics
- Appearance
- Arete
- Argument
- Aristotle
- Arithmetic
- Arithmetization
- Artem Kaznatcheev
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artistic Differences
- Ashby
- Assertion
- Assessment
- Authority
- Automata
- Automated Research Tools
- Automatic Theorem Proving
- Automation
- Balance
- Beauty
- Belief
- Belief Fixation
- Belief Systems
- Bertrand Russell
- Biological Systems
- Boole
- Boolean Algebra
- Boolean Difference Calculus
- Boolean Functions
- C.P. Snow
- C.S. Peirce
- Cactus Graphs
- Cardinality
- Carnap
- Cartesian Coordinate System
- Cartesian Philosophy
- Cartesian Product
- Catalan Numbers
- Category Theory
- Cathy O'Neil
- Causality
- Certainty
- Chance
- Change
- Character
- Characteristic Functions
- Chemistry
- Chomsky
- Classification
- Cognition
- Cognitive Science
- Coherence
- Coherentism
- Combinator Calculus
- Combinatorics
- Combinatory Logic
- Comments Elsewhere
- Commerce
- Communication
- Community
- Community of Inquiry
- Community of Interpretation
- Complementarity
- Complexity
- Compositionality
- Comprehension
- Computability
- Computation
- Computational Complexity
- Computer Programming
- Computer Science
- Computing
- Concept Formation
- Conceptual Barriers
- Conceptual Graphs
- Conceptual Integration
- Concordance
- Congruence
- Conjecture
- Connotation
- Consciousness
- Consensus
- Constraint
- Constraint Satisfaction Problems
- Construct Validity
- Contingency
- Continua
- Continuity
- Control
- Control Systems
- Control Theory
- Convergence
- Correspondence
- Cosmogony
- Critical Thinking
- Curry–Howard Isomorphism
- Cybernetics
- Data Structures
- Deborah G. Mayo
- Deduction
- Definition
- Deja Vu
- Democracy
- Denotation
- Descartes
- Descriptive Science
- Determination
- Determinism
- Dewey
- Diagrammatic Reasoning
- Diagrams
- Dialogue
- Differential Analytic Turing Automata
- Differential Calculus
- Differential Geometry
- Differential Logic
- Differential Propositions
- Dimensionality
- Discovery
- Discrete Dynamical Systems
- Discrete Dynamics
- Discrete Mathematics
- Discreteness
- Discretion
- Dispersion
- Diversity
- Doctrine of Individuals
- Doubt
- Drama
- Dualism
- Duality
- Duns Scotus
- Dyadic Relations
- Dyadicism
- Dynamical Systems
- Dynamics
- Economics
- Education
- Educational Systems Design
- Educational Technology
- Effective Description
- Ego
- Eleatic Stranger
- Enthymeme
- Entropy
- Epimenides
- Epistemology
- Equational Inference
- Error
- Error-Controlled Regulation
- Essentialism
- Eternal Return
- Eternity
- Ethics
- Euclid
- Euler
- Evil
- Evolution
- Existence
- Existential Choice
- Existentialism
- Expectation
- Experience
- Extension
- Fallibility
- Falsity
- Feedback
- Finite Means
- Finitude
- Fitness Landscapes
- Fixation of Belief
- Forest Primeval
- Form
- Formal Grammars
- Formal Language Theory
- Formal Languages
- Formal Systems
- Foundations of Mathematics
- Fourier Transforms
- Frankl Conjecture
- Frederik Stjernfelt
- Free Will
- Freedom
- Freud
- Functional Logic
- Fuzzy Logic
- Fuzzy Sets
- Gödel
- Gödel Numbers
- Generality
- Genericity
- Geometry
- Gettysburg Address
- Governance
- Grabitational Singularity
- Gradient Descent
- Grammar
- Graph Theory
- Group Theory
- Guest Post
- H.W. Gould
- Haecceity
- Harmonic Analysis
- Heap Problem
- Heraclitus
- Hermeneutics
- Higher Order Propositions
- Higher Order Sign Relations
- Hilbert
- Hill Climbing
- History of Mathematics
- History of Science
- Hologrammautomaton
- Homunculi
- Homunculomorphisms
- Humor
- Hypostatic Abstraction
- Hypothesis
- Hypothesis Formation
- Icon Index Symbol
- Iconicity
- Identity
- Ignorance
- Illusion
- Imagination
- In Memoriam
- Incommensurability
- Indication
- Indicator Functions
- Individuality
- Individuals
- Induction
- Inference
- Infinite Use
- Infinitesimals
- Infinity
- Information
- Information & Control
- Information = Comprehension × Extension
- Information Fusion
- Information Resistance
- Information Theory
- Inhibition
- Initiative
- Innate Idea
- Innate Ideas
- Inquiry
- Inquiry Driven Systems
- Inquiry Into Inquiry
- Inquiry Support Technology
- Inscription
- Instruction
- Integer Sequences
- Intelligent Systems
- Intelligent Systems Engineering
- Intelliscope
- Intension
- Intention
- Intentional Contexts
- Intentional Objects
- Intentionality
- Intentions
- Internal Models
- Interoperability
- Interpretation
- Interpretive Duality
- Interpretive Frameworks
- Intuition
- Invention
- Irving Anellis
- John Dewey
- John Venn
- Justice
- Kaina Stoicheia
- Kant
- Knowledge
- Knowledge Bases
- Knowledge Representation
- Lambda Calculus
- Lambda Point
- Law
- Law of Nature
- Laws of Form
- Learning
- Learning
- Learning Organizations
- Learning Society
- Learning Systems
- Learning Theory
- Leibniz
- Lewis Carroll
- Liar Paradox
- Likelihood
- Likely Story
- Likeness
- Limitation
- Linguistics
- Locke
- Logic
- Logic of Relatives
- Logic of Science
- Logical Atoms
- Logical Graphs
- Logical Influence
- Logical Matrices
- Logical Reflexion
- Lotfi Zadeh
- Lou Kauffman
- Machine Learning
- Madeleine
- Maieusis
- Manifolds
- Mantra
- Martin Gardner
- Mathematical Demonstration
- Mathematical Intuition
- Mathematical Logic
- Mathematical Models
- Mathematical Reasoning
- Mathematical Traps
- Mathematics
- Matrix Theory
- Matter
- Max Weber
- Maxim
- Maze
- Meaning
- Measurement
- Mechanization
- Meditation
- Medium = Message
- Memo
- Memoir
- Memorandum
- Memorial Day
- Memory
- Meno
- Mental Models
- Metabasis
- Metaphor
- Metaphysics
- Method
- Michael Harris
- Minimal Negation Operators
- Modality
- Model Theory
- Modus Ponens
- Molière
- Monadology
- Moneytheism
- Morpheus
- Morphism
- Mortality
- Motion
- Music
- Myth
- Mythematics
- Natural Intelligence
- Natural Law
- Neil Sloane
- Networks
- Neural Models
- Nietzsche
- Nominalism
- Normative Science
- Nostalgebra
- Nostalgia
- Number Theory
- Objective Frameworks
- Objectivism
- Objects Objectives Objectivity
- Observation
- Ockham
- Ockham's Razor
- Oedipus
- Ontology
- Open Access Research
- Operations Research
- Optimal Control
- Optimization
- Oracles
- Painted Cacti
- Paradigmata
- Paradigms
- Paradox
- Parmenides
- Passion
- Pattern Recognition
- Péter Frankl
- Pedagogy
- Peirce
- Peirce List
- Peirce's Categories
- Peirce's Law
- Perception
- Peter Woit
- Phenomenology
- Philosophy
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Mind
- Philosophy of Notation
- Philosophy of Science
- Photo
- Phrenology
- Physics
- Pigeonhole Principle
- Pivotal Variables
- Planck
- Planted Plane Trees
- Plato
- Plausibility
- Poem
- Poetry
- Politics
- Praeclarum Theorema
- Pragmata
- Pragmatic Cosmos
- Pragmatic Information
- Pragmatic Maxim
- Pragmatic Semiotic Information
- Pragmatics
- Pragmatism
- Preëstablished Harmony
- Predicate Calculus
- Prigogine
- Probability
- Probable Reasoning
- Problem Solving
- Process
- Process Thinking
- Programming
- Programming Languages
- Proof Theory
- Propositional Calculus
- Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems
- Propositional Logic
- Propositions
- Propositions As Types Analogy
- Proust
- Psychology
- Psychons
- Purpose
- Pythagoras
- Quanta
- Quantifiers
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Mechanics
- Question
- Quotation
- Réseau
- Realism
- Reality
- Reasoning
- Reciprocity
- Recollection
- Recursion
- Redirect
- Reductionism
- References
- Reflection
- Reflective Interpretive Frameworks
- Regulation
- Reification
- Relation Theory
- Relational Algebra
- Relational Programming
- Relative Computability
- Relative Membership
- Relativity
- Relevance
- Repetition
- Representation
- Reproducibility
- Research Technology
- Resistance
- Resource
- Retroduction
- Reverie
- Revolt
- Rheme
- Rhetoric
- Rhythm
- Richard Kilvington
- Riemann
- Riffs and Rotes
- Rousseau
- Routinization
- Saunders Mac Lane
- Scholarship of Integration
- Science
- Scientific Attitude
- Scientific Inquiry
- Scientific Method
- Second Intentions
- Selfhood
- Semantics
- Semeiosis
- Semeiotic
- Semiosis
- Semiositis
- Semiotic Equivalence Relations
- Semiotic Information
- Semiotics
- Set Theory
- Shakespeare
- Sign Relational Manifolds
- Sign Relations
- Singularity
- Sisyphus
- Skiourosemiosis
- Social Compact
- Social Media
- Social Networks
- Society
- Sociology
- Socrates
- Sophismata
- Sophist
- Sorites
- Sources
- Spencer Brown
- Statistical Inference
- Statistics
- Structure
- Summum Bonum
- Surveys
- Survival
- Susan Awbrey
- Sustainability
- Syllogism
- Symbolism
- Symmetry
- Synechism
- Syntax
- Systems
- Systems of Interpretation
- Systems Theory
- Tabula Rasa
- Teaching
- Teaching
- Tenacity
- Teridentity
- Tertium Quid
- Testing
- The Big Picture
- Theatre
- Theodicy
- Theodore Parker
- Theorem Proving
- Theory
- Theory of Limits
- Thirdness
- Thomas Kuhn
- Thony Christie
- Timaeus
- Time
- Tolkien
- Tone Token Type
- Topology
- Translation
- Triadic Relation Irreducibility
- Triadic Relations
- Triadicity
- Truth
- Truth Tables
- Truth Theory
- Turing Machines
- Turing Test
- Two Cultures
- Type Theory
- Uncategorized
- Uncertainty
- Unity
- Universal Harmony
- Universals
- Use
- Use and Mention
- Utility
- Valor
- Valour
- Variety
- Venn Diagrams
- Verse
- Video
- Virtue
- Visualization
- Volition
- W. Ross Ashby
- Warren S. McCulloch
- Wilhelm von Humboldt
- William James
- Year In Review
- Zeno
- Zeroth Law Of Semiotics
- Zeroth Order Logic
Amphecks Animata Boolean Algebra Boolean Functions C.S. Peirce Cactus Graphs Category Theory Cybernetics Deduction Differential Logic Equational Inference Graph Theory Inquiry Inquiry Driven Systems Laws of Form Logic Logical Graphs Logic of Relatives Mathematics Minimal Negation Operators Painted Cacti Peirce Pragmatism Propositional Calculus Relation Theory Semiotics Sign Relations Spencer Brown Triadic Relations Visualization
Logic, Mathematics, Philosophy
Inquiry Driven Systems

Inquiry Driven Systems
Cybernetics

Cybernetics
Differential Logic

Differential Logic
Logical Graphs

Logical Graphs
Minimal Negation Operators

Minimal Negation Operators
Peirce Matters

Peirce Matters
Relation Theory

Relation Theory
Riffs & Rotes

Riffs & Rotes
Semeiotics

Semeiotics
Theme One

Theme One
Current Events
Fawkes News

Fawkes News
Meta
- Create account
- Log in
- Entries feed
- Comments feed
- WordPress.com

Resources

Share this:

Example 1

Resources

Share this:

Resources

Share this:

Example 1

Resources

Share this:

Resources

Share this:

Example 1

Step 1

Step 2

Resources

Share this:

The State Space Approach to Intelligent Systems

Share this:

Information as a Matter of Form, Not a Form of Matter

Reference

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Elsewhere

Blogroll

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blog Stats

Categories

Logic, Mathematics, Philosophy

Current Events

Meta