Tag Archives: Computational Complexity

Differential Logic • Comment 3

Re: Laws Of Form Discussion • BL In my previous comment on boundaries in object universes and venn diagrams, and always when I’m being careful about their mathematical senses, the definitions of “topology” and “boundary“ I have in mind can … Continue reading

Posted in Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Computational Complexity, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamical Systems, Graph Theory, Hill Climbing, Hologrammautomaton, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Differential Logic • Comment 2

Re: Laws Of Form Discussion • JB As always, we have to distinguish between the diagram itself, the representation or sign inscribed in some medium, and the formal object it represents under a given interpretation. A venn diagram is an … Continue reading

Posted in Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Computational Complexity, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamical Systems, Graph Theory, Hill Climbing, Hologrammautomaton, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Differential Logic • Comment 1

Re: Gil Kalai • Pivotal Variables Just a tangential association with respect to logical influence and pivotability.  I have been exploring questions related to pivotal variables (“Differences that Make a Difference” or “Difference In ⟹ Difference Out”) via logical analogues … Continue reading

Posted in Amphecks, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Computational Complexity, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Logic, Discrete Dynamical Systems, Graph Theory, Hill Climbing, Hologrammautomaton, Logic, Logical Graphs, Logical Influence, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Pivotal Variables, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Visualization, Zeroth Order Logic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Animated Logical Graphs : 10

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Charles Pyle Let’s consider Peirce’s logical graphs at the alpha level, the abstract forms of which can be interpreted for propositional logic.  I say “can be interpreted” advisedly because the system of logical graphs itself … Continue reading

Posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, Animata, Automated Research Tools, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Complementarity, Computational Complexity, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Graph Theory, Interpretation, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Semiotics, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization, Zeroth Order Logic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 24

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Jon Alan Schmidt Peirce’s categories are best viewed as categories of relations.  To a first approximation, firstness, secondness, thirdness are simply what all monadic, dyadic, triadic relations, respectively, have in common.  At a second approximation, … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Peirce, Problem Solving, Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 23

Re: Peirce List Discussion • BU • JA • GR • GR • JS These days it takes me a web search to discover what I was thinking and writing the month before.  I went looking for the passage in … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Peirce, Problem Solving, Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 22

Re: Peirce List Discussion • J. Rhee • T. Gollier • E. Taborsky All through 1995 I worked on a graduate project in systems engineering at Oakland University developing my ideas about Inquiry Driven Systems.  I wrote a project report … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Peirce, Problem Solving, Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments