Tag Archives: Relation Theory

Sign Relations • Comment 7

Posted on January 16, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • Francesco Bellucci I am still looking for a way to build a bridge between the different senses of complete and incomplete being used in this discussion but while that bridge is under construction it may help … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 6

Posted on January 15, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • JA • FB • JA • FB Two different senses of completeness and incompleteness in regard to signs arose in discussion at this point, as illustrated by the following exchange: FB: “Socrates” for Peirce would be … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 5

Posted on January 12, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Note. The following links afford a review of the discussion up to this point. Re: Semiotic Triangle • JC • JA • JA • JC • JA • JA • JC • JA • FB • JA • JA Peirce … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 4

Posted on January 11, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: John Corcoran • Semiotic Triangle • My Comment The following passage is very instructive on several points, illuminating especially the relationship between interpreters (sign‑using agents) and interpretant signs. We are all, then, sufficiently familiar with the fact that many … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 3

Posted on January 10, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • John Corcoran A sign relation is a formal structure that satisfies a very general definition, on the same order of generality as a mathematical group or geometry.  So any consideration of what a particular sign relation … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 2

Posted on January 9, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • John Corcoran In a typical sign relation where Socrates belongs to the object domain one sign in the sign domain could be the name “Socrates” and one interpretant in the interpretant domain could be the name … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 17 Comments

Sign Relations • Comment 1

Posted on January 8, 2018 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotic Triangle • John Corcoran Peirce’s triadic sign relations are sets of ordered triples having the form where is the object, is the sign, and is the interpretant sign (usually shortened to interpretant).  In other words, a specific sign relation … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

The Difference That Makes A Difference That Peirce Makes • 19

Posted on November 18, 2017 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • John Sowa Peirce uses the word “formal” in a sense that gives it normative force.  It is this sense in which he defines logic as formal semiotic. But taking “formal” in a normative sense weighs against John … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Descriptive Science, Fixation of Belief, Formal Systems, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Normative Science, Pragmatic Maxim, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Difference That Makes A Difference That Peirce Makes • 18

Posted on July 24, 2017 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peter Smith • Which Is The Quantifier? From a functional logic point of view logicians slipped a step backward when they passed from Peirce’s and to the current convention of using and for logical quantifiers.  There’s a rough indication … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Complementarity, Duality, Formal Languages, Higher Order Propositions, Indicator Functions, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Peirce, Pragmatism, Predicate Calculus, Propositional Calculus, Propositions, Quantifiers, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Type Theory, Zeroth Order Logic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Difference That Makes A Difference That Peirce Makes • 17

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • JA • GF • JFS • JLRC • JA • JFS • GF A rather amusing, if slightly ominous illustration of the point I am trying to make here has just popped up in the daily … Continue reading →

Posted in Automata, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Chomsky, Complementarity, Dewey, Formal Languages, Inquiry, Laws of Form, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Peirce, Philosophy, Physics, Pragmatism, Quantum Mechanics, Relation Theory, Relativity, Science, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Spencer Brown | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment