[Inquiry] Re: Logic Of Relatives

[Jon Awbrey]

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

LOR.  Note 22

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

| The Signs for Multiplication (cont.)
|
| It is obvious that multiplication into
| a multiplicand indicated by a comma is
| commutative <1>, that is,
|
| 's','l'  =  'l','s'.
|
| This multiplication is effectively the same as
| that of Boole in his logical calculus.  Boole's
| unity is my 1, that is, it denotes whatever is.
|
| <1>.  It will often be convenient to speak of the whole operation of
| affixing a comma and then multiplying as a commutative multiplication,
| the sign for which is the comma.  But though this is allowable, we shall
| fall into confusion at once if we ever forget that in point of fact it is
| not a different multiplication, only it is multiplication by a relative
| whose meaning -- or rather whose syntax -- has been slightly altered;
| and that the comma is really the sign of this modification of the
| foregoing term.
|
| C.S. Peirce, CP 3.74
|
| Charles Sanders Peirce,
|"Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives,
| Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic",
|'Memoirs of the American Academy', Volume 9, pages 317-378, 26 January 1870,
|'Collected Papers' (CP 3.45-149), 'Chronological Edition' (CE 2, 359-429).

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