# Tag Archives: Duality

## Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Comment 3

In passing to more complex combinations of relative terms and the extensional relations they denote, as we began to do in Comments 10.6 and 10.7, I used words like composite and composition along with the usual composition sign to describe … Continue reading

## Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 16

Re: Conceptual Graphs • Gary Zhu GZ: I’m quite confused on why people are interested in Laws of Form. What is LOF trying to do? Is it just rewriting logic or is there something more fundamental. e.g. a universal algebraic … Continue reading

## Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Discussion 5

Re: Conceptual Graphs • Peiyuan Zhu PZ: I’m studying imprecise probabilities which initially works as an extension in Boole’s Laws of Thoughts.  It seems like Boole was solving a set of algebraic equations for probabilities where some of the probabilities … Continue reading

## Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Discussion 4

Re: Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Proto-Graphical Syntax Re: FB | Ancient Logic • Henning Engebretsen HE: What’s your point, it’s obviously too graphical, but perhaps you are driving at something else.  Explain? Dear Henning, My aim here is … Continue reading

## Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Discussion 3

All other sciences without exception depend upon the principles of mathematics;  and mathematics borrows nothing from them but hints. C.S. Peirce • “Logic of Number” A principal intention of this essay is to separate what are known as algebras of … Continue reading

## Survey of Relation Theory • 5

In this Survey of blog and wiki posts on Relation Theory, relations are viewed from the perspective of combinatorics, in other words, as a topic in discrete mathematics, with special attention to finite structures and concrete set-theoretic constructions, many of … Continue reading

## Relation Theory • Discussion 3

Re: Relation Theory • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) • (5) Re: Laws of Form • James Bowery JB: Thanks for that very rigorous definition of “relation theory”. Its “trick” of including the name of the -relation in … Continue reading

## Relation Theory • Discussion 2

Re: Relation Theory • (1) • (2) • (3) • (4) Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce Society • Joseph Harry JH: These are iconic representations dealing with logical symbolic relations, and so of course are semiotic in Peirce’s sense, … Continue reading

## Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • Discussion 2

Re: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 2 Re: Laws of Form • John Mingers JM: The quote you have given does not match the standard Peircean trichotomy of icon, index, symbol.  See this quote from [CP 4.447 …] Dear John, I … Continue reading

## Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • Discussion 1

Re: Logical Graphs, Iconicity, Interpretation • 1 Re: Laws of Form • John Mingers JM: I’m impressed that you have read Ricoeur — my impression is that Americans don’t have much time for Continental philosophy (a huge generalisation of course). … Continue reading