[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 15

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 8.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/003145.html
In: FOLG-DIS.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-October/thread.html#3135

JR: To what criticism of mine is the message [above] supposed to be an answer?
    I do not perceive the relevance, especially since Peirce himself did not
    think of his graphical logic as an algebra or as something designed to
    be used as a calculus or as an axiom system.

Joe, Peirce List,

I'm not sure what your favorite vocabulary for it is,
but Peirce worked with pretty much the same concepts
of definition, axiom, theorem, proof, etc. as any
other classically trained mathematician of his
or any other time.

Yes, I am familiar with the folklore that has grown up on this point.
Like a lot of Peirce folklore it exhibits all the familiar symptoms
of overly selective reading.  I have teased out the SMILE thread
partly as a medium for a more inclusive reading on this point.

Jon Awbrey

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