Tag Archives: Amphecks

Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 1

If exegesis raised a hermeneutic problem, that is, a problem of interpretation, it is because every reading of a text always takes place within a community, a tradition, or a living current of thought, all of which display presuppositions and … Continue reading

Minimal Negation Operators • Discussion 2

Re: Minimal Negation Operators • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) Re: Peirce List (1) (2) (3) • Jerry Chandler JC: As a chemist, CSP often inscended hyle terminology into his logical corpse as he sought to extend the 15–17th … Continue reading

Minimal Negation Operators • Discussion 1

Re: Minimal Negation Operators • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) Re: Peirce List (1) (2) • Imran Makani IM: In his first post on this thread Jon clearly says that [minimal negation operators] were developed from Peirce’s alpha … Continue reading

Differential Logic • Discussion 15

Re: Differential Logic • Comment 7 Re: Laws of Form • Lyle Anderson LA: Differentials and partial differentials over the real numbers work because one can pick two real numbers that are arbitrarily close to one another.  The difference between … Continue reading

Differential Logic • Comment 7

Re: John Baez • Cyclic Identity for Partial Derivatives • Maxwell’s Relations (1) (2) (3) Much fun can be had by trying to do differentials and partial differentials over the boolean domain instead of the reals I took a first whack … Continue reading

Animated Logical Graphs • 81

Re: R.J. Lipton and K.W. Regan • A Negative Comment On Negations Minsky and Papert’s Perceptrons was the work that nudged me over the line from gestalt psychology, psychophysics, relational biology, etc. and made me believe AI could fly.  I later … Continue reading

Descriptive and Normative • Discussion 1

Re: Logical Graphs • Discussion 3 Re: Laws of Form • John 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 … Continue reading

Logical Graphs • Discussion 4

Re: Category Theory • Henry 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 … Continue reading

Logical Graphs • Discussion 3

Re: Peirce List • JFS • RM • ET • RM • JFS • JFS • RM Dear John, Robert, Edwina, The Peirce List discussion on “thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words” called to mind the time I spent … Continue reading

Logical Graphs • Discussion 2

Re: Category Theory • Chad 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 … Continue reading