Re: Logic As Formal Semiotic

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

LAFS.  Note 7

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Here is what I regard as one of Peirce's clearest
and most complete definitions of a "sign", which he
defines as a thing that participates in a specified
relation to two other things, thereby constituting
a specific type of triadic relation.

| A sign is something, ''A'',
| which brings something, ''B'',
| its ''interpretant'' sign
| determined or created by it,
| into the same sort of correspondence
| with something, ''C'', its ''object'',
| as that in which itself stands to ''C''.
|
| C.S. Peirce, NEM 4, pp. 20-21 and cf. p. 54, online at:
| http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/l75.htm
| http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/ver1/toc.htm
| http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/ver1/l75v1-05.htm#m12
|
| ''The New Elements of Mathematics'', Volume 4,
| Carolyn Eisele (ed.), Mouton, The Hague, 1976.

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
¢iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o