[Inquiry] Re: Sign Relations -- Commentary

[Jon Awbrey]

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

SR.  Commentary Note 30

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

Peirce List,

A generic comment on the point of view behind this exercise:
I will try not weary my readers with grounds that we've all
picked over a gadshillion times before, in hope at least to
worry them with relatively fresh material.  I'm used to the
notion that natural variations in human affective-cognitive
styles might just necessitate residual incommensurabilities
that will outlast my tenure on this planet, or even persist
well into the foreseeable future, but I also know that some
of my readers at least will already know what a relation is,
what a 3-adic relation is, and have a Peirce-catalyzed clue
as to what a 3-adic sign relation is, relying on compatible
ideas of "3-adic correspondence" and "3-adic determination",
all of which I've dredged up the persinent texts for on not
just a few occasions, and so I will work on that assumption.
The purpose of exercises like these is precisely to clarify
the abstract and abstruse concepts in question.  The way it
works is that we already know how to generate generic cases
under a given genus, say, 3-adic relation, and if our sense
of a species, say, sign relation, doesn't tell us forthwith
exactly which creatures of the genus fall under the species
in question, then that is prima facie evidence that we need
to do more work on sharpening up the differentials at issue.

Jon Awbrey

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