Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Comment 2

Re: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Comment 1

Definitions tend to call on other terms in need of their own definitions, and so on till the process terminates at the level of primitive terms.  The main two concepts requiring supplementation in Peirce’s definition of a sign relation are the ideas of correspondence and determination.  We can figure out fairly well what Peirce had in mind from things he wrote elsewhere, as I explained in the Sign Relation article I added to Wikipedia 15 years ago.  Not daring to look at what’s left of that, here’s the relevant section from the OEIS Wiki fork.

cc: Category Theory • Cybernetics (1) (2)
cc: Ontolog ForumStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | SemeioticsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Comment 1

I opened a topic on Sign Relations in the Logic stream of Category Theory Zulipchat to work on Peirce’s theory of triadic sign relations in a category-theoretic framework.

I had been reading Peirce for a decade or more before I found a math-strength definition of signs and sign relations.  A lot of the literature on semiotics takes almost any aperçu Peirce penned about signs as a “definition” but barely a handful of those descriptions are consequential enough to support significant theory.  For my part, the definition of a sign relation coming closest to the mark is one Peirce gave in the process of defining logic itself.  Two variants of that definition are linked and copied below.

C.S. Peirce • On the Definition of Logic

Selections from C.S. Peirce, “Carnegie Application” (1902)

No. 12.  On the Definition of Logic

Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic.  A definition of a sign will be given which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.  Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.  It is from this definition, together with a definition of “formal”, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.  I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological conception of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.  (NEM 4, 20–21).

No. 12.  On the Definition of Logic [Earlier Draft]

Logic is formal semiotic.  A sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign, determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence (or a lower implied sort) with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stands to C.  This definition no more involves any reference to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place within which a particle lies during a lapse of time.  It is from this definition that I deduce the principles of logic by mathematical reasoning, and by mathematical reasoning that, I aver, will support criticism of Weierstrassian severity, and that is perfectly evident.  The word “formal” in the definition is also defined.  (NEM 4, 54).

Reference

  • Charles S. Peirce (1902), “Parts of Carnegie Application” (L 75), published in Carolyn Eisele (ed., 1976), The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, vol. 4, 13–73.  Online.

cc: Category Theory • Cybernetics (1) (2)
cc: Ontolog ForumStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | SemeioticsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Comment 3

Here’s a couple of selections from Peirce’s 1870 Logic of Relatives bearing on the proper use of individuals in mathematics, and thus on the choice between nominal thinking and real thinking. 😸

  • Mathematical Demonstration & the Doctrine of Individuals • (1)(2)

Resources

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Relation TheoryLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Dyadic Relations, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Nominalism, Peirce, Pragmatism, Realism, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Comment 2

Before I forget how I got myself into this particular briar patch — I mean the immediate occasion, not the long ago straying from the beaten path — it was largely in discussions with Henry Story where he speaks of links between Peirce’s logical graphs and current thinking about string diagrams and bicategories of relations.  Now that certainly sounds like something I ought to get into, if not already witting or otherwise engaged in it, but there are a few notes of reservation I know I will eventually have to explain, so I’ve been working my way up to those.

First I need to set the stage for any properly Peircean discussion of logic and mathematics, and that is the context of triadic sign relations.  I know what you’re thinking, “How can we talk about triadic sign relations before we have a theory of relations in general?”  The only way I know to answer that is by putting my programmer hard‑hat on and taking recourse in that practice which starts from the simplest thinkable species of a sort and builds its way back up to the genus, step by step.

Resource

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Relation TheoryLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Dyadic Relations, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Nominalism, Peirce, Pragmatism, Realism, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Descriptive and Normative • Discussion 1

Re: Logical Graphs • Discussion 3
Re: Laws of FormJohn Mingers

JM:
I hesitate to enter into this debate but I would want to draw different distinctions to normative/descriptive.

I would distinguish (following philosopher Roy Bhaskar) between the transitive and intransitive domains of science.

The transitive domain is the realm of our actual human activities as scientists — theories, papers, grants, methodologies, experiments, debates, disagreements, etc.  It is clearly value-full and normative.  It is part of the social world.

The intransitive domain is the realm of the objects of our knowledge, the physical/material world in the case of natural science, and the social and psychological worlds in the case of social science.  In the case of the physical world then these objects are indeed independent of us — the universe existed before humans and will no doubt exist after us.  So to that extent the intransitive domain of natural science is descriptive/positive although of course we can manipulate physical objects in order to meet our interests (or not meet as in climate change!).

However, in the case of the social world then social objects — meanings, practices, roles, structures, motives, etc. is always already value-full — they are intrinsically constituted in terms of good/bad or desirable/undesirable.

So, social science and natural science are broadly similar — they share a commitment to discovering true knowledge (which in itself makes them committed and not value-free), and they share a broadly similar abductive (to use a Peirce term) methodology, but social science has limitations and commitments which make it different in some ways from natural science.

Hi John,

Yeah, I never get a lot from debate styles of discussion.  I need to get back to logical graphs anyway but I pretty much said all I need for now about descriptive/normative.  I’m not one to make much hay out of classifying sciences, never been good at coloring inside the lines or sticking to one disciplinary silo.  All my favorite fields merged and mutated so many times so long ago it cured me of the class of classification mania so endemic among Peirceans.  At any rate, you can’t really disentangle the two styles of inquiries, since the moment you say you want a “good” description you have just introduced a normative concern.  Still, it’s useful as a rule of thumb to distinguish the two axes of value.  Which is why they call it “axiology”.

Cheers,

Jon

cc: CyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Peirce MattersLaws of FormPeirce List

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Relations & Their Relatives • Comment 1

I opened a topic on Relation Theory in the Logic stream of Category Theory Zulipchat to discuss the logic of relative terms and the mathematics of relations as they develop from Peirce’s first breakthroughs (1865–1870).

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, there are radical innovations in that work, probing deeper strata of logic and mathematics than ever before mined and thus undermining the fundamental nominalism of First Order Logic as we know it.

Resource

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Relation TheoryLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Dyadic Relations, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Nominalism, Peirce, Pragmatism, Realism, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Logical Graphs • Discussion 4

Re: Category TheoryHenry Story

HS:
Evan Patterson’s “Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations” is also drawn up in terms of string diagrams, as a way of explaining the W3C RDF and OWL standards.  So it looks like we have a nice route from Peirce to RDF via string diagrams.  Or the other way around:  whichever route one prefers to travel.

Dear Henry,

I opened a topic on Relation Theory in the Logic stream of Category Theory Zulipchat to discuss the logic of relative terms and the mathematics of relations as they develop from Peirce’s first breakthroughs (1865–1870).  As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, there are radical innovations in this work, probing deeper strata of logic and mathematics than ever before mined and thus undermining the fundamental nominalism of First Order Logic as we know it.

Regards,

Jon

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2)

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Notes On Categories • 2

Re: Category TheoryJoe Moeller

JM:
In category theory, we have this perspective that we should focus attention on maps, on the relationships between objects, rather than on the objects themselves.  What’s your favorite examples of people giving a schpiel about this?  Blog posts, snippets from books or papers, or even just giving your own take right now, are all welcome.

My first “abstract algebra” course in college (U Mich, 1970), the last project our instructor assigned us was to “do something creative”, a piece of creative writing, painting, sculpture, or other objet d’art, reflecting on one of the topics covered in the course.

I wrote a science fiction story about two species of creatures, the Sets and the Mappings.  No way I can remember all the details but I recall it explored a theme of duality between the two forms of life and the way ideas about “things in themselves” evolved over time into ideas about “that which changes into itself”.

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Relation TheoryLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in Abstraction, Category Theory, Computing, Graph Theory, Logic, Mathematics, Relation Theory, Type Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Logical Graphs • Discussion 3

Re: Peirce ListJFSRMETRMJFSJFSRM

Dear John, Robert, Edwina,

The Peirce List discussion on “thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words” called to mind the time I spent a hefty sum on a copy of Stjernfelt’s Diagrammatology which ran to over 500 pages with many sections in very small print and had just over 50 diagrams between the covers.

In the same way, the real Versus monopolizing our attention here is not so much the difference between “thinking in diagrams” and “thinking in words” as the difference between “thinking in words about thinking in diagrams” and “thinking in words about thinking in words”.

Those of us who have been developing “moving pictures” from the very get-go have learned to see things rather differently.

Peirce Syllabus

Normative science rests largely on phenomenology and on mathematics;
metaphysics on phenomenology and on normative science.

❧ Charles Sanders Peirce • Collected Papers, CP 1.186 (1903)
Syllabus • Classification of Sciences (CP 1.180–202, G-1903-2b)

Regardez,

Jon

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of FormPeirce List

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Logical Graphs • Discussion 2

Re: Category TheoryChad Nester

CN:
Recently a few of us have been using the “cartesian bicategories of relations” of Carboni and Walters, in particular their string diagrams, as syntax for relations.  The string diagrams in question are more or less a directed version of Peirce’s lines of identity.  They’re usually described in terms of commutative special frobenius algebras.  I suspect the reason we keep finding commutative special frobenius algebras is that they support lines of identity in this way.

Dear Chad, Henry, …

Chaos rules my niche of the world right now so I’ll just break a bit of the ice by sharing the following links to my ongoing study of Peirce’s 1870 Logic Of Relatives.

See especially the following paragraph.

To my way of thinking the above paragraph is one of the most radical passages in the history of logic, relativizing traditional assumptions of an absolute distinction between generals (universals) and individuals.  Among other things, it pulls the rug out from under any standing for nominalism as opposed to realism about universals.

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of FormPeirce List

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments