Peirce's 1870 “Logic Of Relatives ” • Comment 11.3
Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> Tue, 03 Jun 2014 10:15:14 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.inquiry |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Post : Peirce's 1870 =93Logic Of Relatives=94 =95 Comment 11.3 http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/04/30/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%e= 2%80%a2-comment-11-3/ Posted : April 30, 2014 at 3:00 pm Author : Jon Awbrey Peircers, Before I can discuss Peirce's =93number of=94 function in greater detail I = will need to deal with an = expositional difficulty that I have been very carefully dancing around all = this time, but one that = will no longer abide its assigned place under the rug. Functions have long been understood, from well before Peirce's time to ours= , as special cases of = dyadic relations, so the =93number of=94 function itself is already to be n= umbered among the types of = dyadic relatives that we=92ve been explicitly mentioning and implicitly usi= ng all this time. But = Peirce's way of talking about a dyadic relative term is to list the =93rela= te=94 first and the = =93correlate=94 second, a convention that goes over into functional terms a= s making the functional value = first and the functional argument second, whereas almost anyone brought up = in our present time frame = has difficulty thinking of a function any other way than as a set of ordere= d pairs where the order = in each pair lists the functional argument first and the functional value s= econd. All of these syntactic wrinkles can be ironed out in a very smooth way, giv= en a sufficiently general = context of flexible enough interpretive conventions, but not without introd= ucing an order of = anachronism into Peirce's presentation that I am presently trying to avoid = as much as possible. = Thus, I will need to experiment with various styles of compromise formation. The interpretation of Peirce's 1870 =93Logic of Relatives=94 can be facilit= ated by introducing a few = items of background material on relations in general, as regarded from a co= mbinatorial point of view. Regards, Jon -- = academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache