[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Note 41

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

Cybernetics List, Peirce List,

One of the other tactics of syntax that I tried at this time --
somewhere in the 70's ... when did we quit using punchcards? --
by way of porting operator variables into logical graphs and
the laws of form, was to hollow out a leg of Spencer-Brown's
crosses, gnomons, markers, whatever you call them, like this:

` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ----------o---o ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` | ` | ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` q ` ` | p | ` ` = ` ` { ` q ` , ` (q) ` } ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` | ` | ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

The initial idea that I had in mind here was the same as before,
that the operator over q is counted as absent when p evaluates
to a space and counted as present when p evaluates to a cross.

However, much in the same way that operators with a shade
of negativity to them tend to be more generative than the
purely "positivistic" brand, it turned out to be slightly
more useful to reverse this initial polarity of operation,
letting the operator over q be counted as absent whenever
p evaluates to a cross and be counted as present whenever
p evaluates to a space.

So that is the convention that I shall adopt from here on.

Jon Awbrey

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