Continuous predicate - Revision history

Jon Awbrey: update

2015-11-10T04:08:03Z

update

Jon Awbrey: spacing

2015-11-09T15:08:05Z

spacing

Jon Awbrey: update

2015-11-09T15:00:19Z

update

Show changes

Jon Awbrey: Category:Charles Sanders Peirce

2011-10-29T19:08:11Z

Category:Charles Sanders Peirce

Jon Awbrey: /* Peer nodes */ + 2

2010-06-21T13:46:58Z

Peer nodes: + 2

Jon Awbrey: /* Information, Inquiry */

2010-05-23T11:48:55Z

Information, Inquiry

Jon Awbrey: /* Syllabus */ update

2010-05-22T15:08:41Z

Syllabus: update

Jon Awbrey: /* Resources */

2010-05-16T19:21:53Z

Resources

Jon Awbrey: fix dashes

2010-05-16T19:20:40Z

fix dashes

Jon Awbrey: /* Syllabus */ standardize

2010-05-16T19:04:37Z

Syllabus: standardize

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 [[Category:Logic]]
 [[Category:Mathematics]]
 [[Category:Philosophy]]
 [[Category:Semiotics]]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 When we have analyzed a proposition so as to throw into the subject everything that can be removed from the predicate, all that it remains for the predicate to represent is the form of connection between the different subjects as expressed in the propositional ''form''.&nbsp; What I mean by &ldquo;everything that can be removed from the predicate&rdquo; is best explained by giving an example of something not so removable.
-But first take something removable.&nbsp; &ldquo;Cain kills Abel.&rdquo;&nbsp; Here the predicate appears as &ldquo;&mdash; kills &mdash;.&rdquo;&nbsp; But&nbsp;we can remove killing from the predicate and make the latter &ldquo;&mdash; stands in the relation &mdash; to &mdash;.&rdquo;&nbsp; Suppose we attempt to remove more from the predicate and put the last into the form &ldquo;&mdash; exercises the function of relate of the relation &mdash; to &mdash;&rdquo; and then putting &ldquo;the function of relate to the relation&rdquo; into another subject leave as predicate &ldquo;&mdash; exercises &mdash; in respect to &mdash; to &mdash;.&rdquo;&nbsp; But this &ldquo;exercises&rdquo; expresses &ldquo;exercises the function&rdquo;.&nbsp; Nay more, it expresses &ldquo;exercises the function of relate&rdquo;, so that we find that though we may put this into a separate subject, it continues in the predicate just the same.
+But first take something removable.&nbsp; &ldquo;Cain kills Abel.&rdquo;&nbsp; Here the predicate appears as &ldquo;&mdash; kills &mdash;.&rdquo;&nbsp; But&nbsp;we can remove killing from the predicate and make the latter &ldquo;&mdash; stands in the relation &mdash; to &mdash;.&rdquo;&nbsp; Suppose we attempt to remove more from the predicate and put the last into the form &ldquo;&mdash; exercises the function of relate of the relation &mdash; to &mdash;&rdquo; and then putting &ldquo;the function of relate to the relation&rdquo; into another subject leave as predicate &ldquo;&mdash; exercises &mdash; in respect to &mdash; to &mdash;.&rdquo;&nbsp; But&nbsp;this &ldquo;exercises&rdquo; expresses &ldquo;exercises the function&rdquo;.&nbsp; Nay more, it expresses &ldquo;exercises the function of relate&rdquo;, so that we find that though we may put this into a separate subject, it continues in the predicate just the same.
-Stating this in another form, to say that &ldquo;A is in the relation R to B&rdquo; is to say that A is in a certain relation to R.&nbsp; Let us separate this out thus:&nbsp; &ldquo;A is in the relation R<sup>1</sup> (where R<sup>1</sup> is the relation of a relate to the relation of which it is the relate) to R to B&rdquo;.&nbsp; But A is here said to be in a certain relation to the relation R<sup>1</sup>.&nbsp; So that we can express the same fact by saying, &ldquo;A is in the relation R<sup>1</sup> to the relation R<sup>1</sup> to the relation R to B&rdquo;, and so on ''ad&nbsp;infinitum''.
+Stating this in another form, to say that &ldquo;A is in the relation R to B&rdquo; is to say that A is in a certain relation to R.&nbsp; Let us separate this out thus:&nbsp; &ldquo;A is in the relation R<sup>1</sup> (where R<sup>1</sup> is the relation of a relate to the relation of which it is the relate) to R to B&rdquo;.&nbsp; But&nbsp;A is here said to be in a certain relation to the relation R<sup>1</sup>.&nbsp; So that we can express the same fact by saying, &ldquo;A is in the relation R<sup>1</sup> to the relation R<sup>1</sup> to the relation R to B&rdquo;, and so on ''ad&nbsp;infinitum''.
 A predicate which can thus be analyzed into parts all homogeneous with the whole I call a ''continuous predicate''.&nbsp; It is very important in logical analysis, because a continuous predicate obviously cannot be a ''compound'' except of continuous predicates, and thus when we have carried analysis so far as to leave only a continuous predicate, we have carried it to its ultimate elements.

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 [[Category:Open Educational Resource]]
 [[Category:Peer Educational Resource]]
 [[Category:Computer Science]]
 [[Category:Linguistics]]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 * [http://mathweb.org/wiki/Continuous_predicate Continuous Predicate @ MathWeb Wiki]
 * [http://netknowledge.org/wiki/Continuous_predicate Continuous Predicate @ NetKnowledge]
 {{col-break}}
 * [http://p2pfoundation.net/Continuous_Predicate Continuous Predicate @ P2P Foundation]
 * [http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Continuous_predicate Continuous Predicate @ SemanticWeb]
 {{col-end}}

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 {{col-break}}
 * [[Pragmatic maxim]]
-* [[Pragmatic theory of truth]]
+* [[Truth theory]]
 {{col-end}}

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 {{col-break}}
 * [[Inquiry]]
 * [[Logic of information]]
 {{col-break}}
@@ Line 117: / Line 120: @@
 * [[Pragmatic maxim]]
 * [[Pragmatic theory of truth]]
 {{col-end}}
 ===Related articles===
 * [http://mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Introduction_to_Inquiry_Driven_Systems Jon Awbrey, &ldquo;Introduction To Inquiry Driven Systems&rdquo;]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ==Resources==
-* [http://vectors.usc.edu/thoughtmesh/publish/147.php Continuous Predicate ? ThoughtMesh]
+* [http://vectors.usc.edu/thoughtmesh/publish/147.php Continuous Predicate &rarr; ThoughtMesh]
 ==Syllabus==

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 <p>When we have analyzed a proposition so as to throw into the subject everything that can be removed from the predicate, all that it remains for the predicate to represent is the form of connection between the different subjects as expressed in the propositional ''form''.  What I mean by "everything that can be removed from the predicate" is best explained by giving an example of something not so removable.</p>
-<p>But first take something removable.  "Cain kills Abel."  Here the predicate appears as "— kills —."  But we can remove killing from the predicate and make the latter "— stands in the relation — to —."  Suppose we attempt to remove more from the predicate and put the last into the form "— exercises the function of relate of the relation — to —" and then putting "the function of relate to the relation" into another subject leave as predicate "— exercises — in respect to — to —."  But this "exercises" expresses "exercises the function".  Nay more, it expresses "exercises the function of relate", so that we find that though we may put this into a separate subject, it continues in the predicate just the same.</p>
+<p>But first take something removable.  "Cain kills Abel."  Here the predicate appears as "&mdash; kills &mdash;."  But we can remove killing from the predicate and make the latter "&mdash; stands in the relation &mdash; to &mdash;."  Suppose we attempt to remove more from the predicate and put the last into the form "&mdash; exercises the function of relate of the relation &mdash; to &mdash;" and then putting "the function of relate to the relation" into another subject leave as predicate "&mdash; exercises &mdash; in respect to &mdash; to &mdash;."  But this "exercises" expresses "exercises the function".  Nay more, it expresses "exercises the function of relate", so that we find that though we may put this into a separate subject, it continues in the predicate just the same.</p>
-<p>Stating this in another form, to say that "A is in the relation R to B" is to say that A is in a certain relation to R.  Let us separate this out thus:  "A is in the relation R¹ (where R¹ is the relation of a relate to the relation of which it is the relate) to R to B".  But A is here said to be in a certain relation to the relation R¹.  So that we can express the same fact by saying, "A is in the relation R¹ to the relation R¹ to the relation R to B", and so on ''ad infinitum''.</p>
+<p>Stating this in another form, to say that "A is in the relation R to B" is to say that A is in a certain relation to R.  Let us separate this out thus:  "A is in the relation R<sup>1</sup> (where R<sup>1</sup> is the relation of a relate to the relation of which it is the relate) to R to B".  But A is here said to be in a certain relation to the relation R<sup>1</sup>.  So that we can express the same fact by saying, "A is in the relation R<sup>1</sup> to the relation R<sup>1</sup> to the relation R to B", and so on ''ad infinitum''.</p>
-<p>A predicate which can thus be analyzed into parts all homogeneous with the whole I call a ''continuous predicate''.  It is very important in logical analysis, because a continuous predicate obviously cannot be a ''compound'' except of continuous predicates, and thus when we have carried analysis so far as to leave only a continuous predicate, we have carried it to its ultimate elements.  (C.S. Peirce, "Letters to Lady Welby" (14 December 1908), ''Selected Writings'', pp. 396–397).</p>
+<p>A predicate which can thus be analyzed into parts all homogeneous with the whole I call a ''continuous predicate''.  It is very important in logical analysis, because a continuous predicate obviously cannot be a ''compound'' except of continuous predicates, and thus when we have carried analysis so far as to leave only a continuous predicate, we have carried it to its ultimate elements.  (C.S. Peirce, "Letters to Lady Welby" (14 December 1908), ''Selected Writings'', pp. 396&ndash;397).</p>
 </blockquote>
 ==References==
-* [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, C.S.]], "Letters to Lady Welby", pp. 380–432 in ''Charles S. Peirce : Selected Writings (Values in a Universe of Chance)'', [[Philip P. Wiener]] (ed.), Dover, New York, NY, 1966.
+* [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, C.S.]], "Letters to Lady Welby", pp. 380&ndash;432 in ''Charles S. Peirce : Selected Writings (Values in a Universe of Chance)'', [[Philip P. Wiener]] (ed.), Dover, New York, NY, 1966.
 ==Resources==
-* [http://vectors.usc.edu/thoughtmesh/publish/147.php Continuous Predicate → ThoughtMesh]
+* [http://vectors.usc.edu/thoughtmesh/publish/147.php Continuous Predicate ? ThoughtMesh]
 ==Syllabus==