Tag Archives: Deduction

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 3

Posted on February 17, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: R.J. Lipton and K.W. Regan • Waves, Hazards, Guesses Aristotle’s apagoge, variously translated as abduction, reduction, or retroduction, is a form of reasoning common to two types of situations. Abduction may involve either of the following two operations. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Problem Solving, Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Inquiry, Signs, Relations • 1

Posted on July 5, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Michael Harris • A Non-Logical Cognitive Phenomenon Human spontaneous non-demonstrative inference is not, overall, a logical process.  Hypothesis formation involves the use of deductive rules, but is not totally governed by them;  hypothesis confirmation is a non-logical cognitive phenomenon:  … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Action, Analogy, C.S. Peirce, Cognition, Cognitive Science, Communication, Deduction, Foundations of Mathematics, Induction, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Michael Harris, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mathematics, Philosophy of Science, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Relevance, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Animated Logical Graphs • 9

Posted on May 24, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations The insight it takes to find a succinct axiom set for a theoretical domain falls under the heading of abductive or retroductive reasoning, a knack as yet refractory to computational attack, but … Continue reading →

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Animated Logical Graphs • 8

Posted on May 23, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations The most striking example of a “Primitive Insight Proof” (PIP❢) known to me is the Dawes–Utting proof of the Double Negation Theorem from the CSP–GSB axioms for propositional logic.  There is a … Continue reading →

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Animated Logical Graphs • 7

Posted on May 22, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations There are several issues of computation shape and proof style that raise their heads already at the logical ground level of boolean functions and propositional calculus.  From what I’ve seen, there are … Continue reading →

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Survey of Semiotic Theory Of Information • 1

Posted on May 17, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

This is a Survey of previous blog and wiki posts on the Semiotic Theory Of Information.  All my projects are exploratory in essence but this line of inquiry is more open-ended than most.  The question is: What is information and how … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Communication, Control, Cybernetics, Deduction, Determination, Discovery, Doubt, Epistemology, Fixation of Belief, Induction, Information, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Invention, Knowledge, Learning Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Pragmatic Information, Probable Reasoning, Process Thinking, Relation Theory, Scientific Inquiry, Scientific Method, Semeiosis, Semiosis, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Surveys, Triadic Relations, Uncertainty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • 1

Posted on May 14, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

This is a Survey of blog and wiki posts on Inquiry Driven Systems, material I plan to refine toward a more compact and systematic treatment of the subject. An inquiry driven system is a system having among its state variables … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Action, Adaptive Systems, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, Automated Research Tools, Change, Cognitive Science, Communication, Cybernetics, Deduction, Descartes, Dewey, Discovery, Doubt, Education, Educational Systems Design, Educational Technology, Fixation of Belief, Induction, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Intelligent Systems, Interpretation, Invention, Kant, Knowledge, Learning, Learning Theory, Logic, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Mental Models, Peirce, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Process Thinking, Scientific Inquiry, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Surveys, Teaching, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Animated Logical Graphs • 6

Posted on March 13, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Jim Willgoose At root we are dealing with a genre of very abstract formal systems.  They have grammars that determine their well-formed expressions and rules that determine the permissible transformations among expressions, but they lack … Continue reading →

Posted in Amphecks, Analogy, Animata, Automated Research Tools, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Graph Theory, Iconicity, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Model Theory, Peirce, Peirce's Law, Praeclarum Theorema, Pragmatism, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Mathematical Demonstration and the Doctrine of Individuals • 2

Posted on February 23, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Selection from C.S. Peirce’s “Logic Of Relatives” (1870) In reference to the doctrine of individuals, two distinctions should be borne in mind.  The logical atom, or term not capable of logical division, must be one of which every predicate may … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Deduction, Doctrine of Individuals, Foundations of Mathematics, Identity, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematical Demonstration, Mathematics, Relation Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Mathematical Demonstration and the Doctrine of Individuals • 1

Posted on February 22, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Selection from C.S. Peirce’s “Logic Of Relatives” (1870) Demonstration of the sort called mathematical is founded on suppositions of particular cases.  The geometrician draws a figure;  the algebraist assumes a letter to signify a single quantity fulfilling the required conditions.  … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Deduction, Doctrine of Individuals, Foundations of Mathematics, Identity, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematical Demonstration, Mathematics, Relation Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments