Re: Triadic Relations

Preceding Discussion:
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15125
JD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15126
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15127
GR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15128
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15129
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15130
Place Where I Came In:
HP:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15155
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15160
HP:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15161

Howard,

It's hard for someone trained as a graph theorist to make sense of that 
question, since graphs, strictly speaking, are just dyadic (or binary) relations.

If we are more loosely speaking about the sorts of diagrams that Peirce called 
"graphs" and used to represent propositions about arbitrary k-place relations, 
then we'll have to take some time to say what those are exactly and what they 
represent and how exactly to interpret them.

I might very hazily hazard a guess that are talking about a picture like this:

``````````
```````s``
``````/```
o---<R````
``````\```
```````i``
``````````

And maybe what you call a "dyadic subgraph" is some 2-part piece of that?

If that is the indeed case, then we'd need to consider very carefully what that 
2-part piece of the diagram represents about the intended mathematical object, 
which is, we agree, a triadic relation in the strict sense, a set of 3-tuples.

But I'd need to check that guess before going any further down this path.

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