Tag Archives: Relation Theory

Systems of Interpretation • 5

Posted on March 31, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Jerry Chandler An elementary sign relation is an ordered triple   It is called elementary because it is one element of a sign relation where is a set of objects, is a set of signs, and … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems of Interpretation, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Systems of Interpretation • 4

Posted on March 30, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Mike Bergman • Valentine Daniel For its pertinence to the present discussion, here again is what Peirce wrote about the mathematical way of using individual or particular cases to make general hypotheses or suppositions: Mathematical Demonstration … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems of Interpretation, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Systems of Interpretation • 3

Posted on March 29, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Mike Bergman • Valentine Daniel The “triskelion” figure in the previous post shows the bare essentials of an elementary sign relation or individual triple   There’s a less skeletal figure Susan Awbrey and I used in … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems of Interpretation, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Systems of Interpretation • 2

Posted on March 28, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Mike Bergman • Valentine Daniel Let’s start as simply as possible.  The following Figure is typical of many I have used to illustrate sign relations from the time I first began studying Peirce’s theory of signs. … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems of Interpretation, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Systems of Interpretation • 1

Posted on March 28, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List • Mike Bergman • Valentine Daniel Questions have arisen about the different styles of diagrams and figures used to represent triadic sign relations in Peircean semiotics.  What do they mean?  Which style is best?  Among the most … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems of Interpretation, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 17

Posted on January 4, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • HR We have been considering special properties that a dyadic relation may have, in particular, the following two symmetry properties. A dyadic relation is symmetric if being in implies that is in A dyadic relation is … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Dyadic Relations, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Considerate Reason • 2

Posted on December 29, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: R.J. Lipton • Why Is Discrete Math Hard To Teach? The Liberal Arts trivium of Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric received a latter day echo in the Unified Science trivium of Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, which was in turn the way Charles Morris … Continue reading →

Posted in Argument, C.S. Peirce, Computer Programming, Discrete Mathematics, Education, Educational Systems Design, Grammar, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Interpretation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Pragmatics, Relation Theory, Rhetoric, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Considerate Reason • 1

Posted on December 28, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: R.J. Lipton • Why Is Discrete Math Hard To Teach? Rhetoric deals with forms of argument that consider the interpreter.  As considerate reason, it is involved in the style of training the Greeks dubbed education, “leading out”, and it … Continue reading →

Posted in Argument, C.S. Peirce, Computer Programming, Discrete Mathematics, Education, Educational Systems Design, Grammar, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Interpretation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Pragmatics, Relation Theory, Rhetoric, Semantics, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syntax, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 16

Posted on December 22, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • HR I would not want the dyadic case to detain us too long, as often happens when we frame a simple example for the purpose of illustration and then fail to rise beyond it. I … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Dyadic Relations, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Relations & Their Relatives • Discussion 15

Posted on December 12, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peirce List Discussion • HR The immediate task is to get clear about the critical relationship between relations as sets and elementary relations as elements of those sets.  What’s at stake is understanding the extensional aspect of relations.  Beyond … Continue reading →

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Dyadic Relations, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments