[Inquiry] Re: Dynamics And Logic

[Jon Awbrey]

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

DAL.  Note 15

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

In Peirce's time, and even in some circles of mathematics today,
the information indicated by the elementary relatives (i:j), as
i, j range over the universe of discourse, would be referred to
as the "umbral elements" of the algebraic operation represented
by the matrix, though I seem to recall that Peirce preferred to
call these terms the "ingredients".  When this ordered basis is
understood well enough, one will tend to drop any mention of it
from the matrix itself, leaving us nothing but these bare bones:

   M  =

   1  1  0

   0  1  1

   1  0  1

However the specification may come to be written, this
is all just convenient schematics for stipulating that:

   M  =  a:a  +  b:b  +  c:c  +  a:b  +  b:c  +  c:a

Recognizing !1! = a:a + b:b + c:c as the identity transformation,
the 2-adic relative term m = "marker for" can be represented as an
element !1! + a:b + b:c + c:a of the so-called "group ring", all of
which just makes this element a special sort of linear transformation.

Up to this point, we are still reading the elementary relatives
of the form i:j in the way that Peirce customarily read them in
logical contexts:  i is the relate, j is the correlate, and in
our current example we reading i:j, or more exactly, m_ij = 1,
to say that i is a marker for j.  This is the mode of reading
that we call "multiplying on the left".

In the algebraic, permutational, or transformational contexts of
application, however, Peirce converts to the alternative mode of
reading, although still calling i the relate and j the correlate,
the elementary relative i:j now means that i gets changed into j.
In this scheme of reading, the transformation a:b + b:c + c:a is
a permutation of the aggregate $1$ = a + b + c, or what we would
now call the set {a, b, c}, in particular, it is the permutation
that is otherwise notated as:

   ( a b c )
   <       >
   ( b c a )

This is consistent with the convention that Peirce uses in
the paper "On a Class of Multiple Algebras" (CP 3.324-327).

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o