[Inquiry] Re: Relatives Of Second Intention

[Jon Awbrey]

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

ROSI.  Note 6

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

| Classification of Simple Relatives (cont.)
|
| c.  Third, relatives are divisible into those for which every
|     element of the form (A:B) have another of the form (B:A),
|     and those which want this symmetry.  This is the old
|     division into 'equiparants'[1] and 'disquiparants'[2],
|     or in Professor De Morgan's language, convertible
|     and inconvertible relatives [3].  Equiparants are
|     their own correlatives.  All copulatives are
|     equiparant.
|
| [1] [Marginal Note].  "If such reciprocation is admissible
|     but not necessary they may be called 'reciprocal'."
|
| [2] "Quaedam sunt relationes equiparantiae, quaedam disquiparantiae. ..."
|     Peirce gives extended quotations from Ockham and Petrus Hispanus [JA].
|
| [3] 'Formal Logic', p. 345.

| C.S. Peirce, CP 3.136
|
| C.S. 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
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o