Cf: Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Preliminaries
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/27/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-p…
All,
I need to return to my study of Peirce’s 1870 Logic of Relatives,
and I thought it might be more pleasant to do that on my blog than
to hermit away on the wiki where I last left off.
Peirce’s 1870 “Logic of Relatives” • Part 1
===========================================
https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Part_1
Peirce’s text employs lower case letters for logical terms of general reference
and upper case letters for logical terms of individual reference. General terms
fall into types, namely, absolute terms, dyadic relative terms, and higher adic
relative terms, and Peirce employs different typefaces to distinguish these.
The following Tables indicate the typefaces used in the text below for Peirce’s
examples of general terms.
Table 1. Absolute Terms (Monadic Relatives)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/peirces-1870-lor-e28…
Table 2. Simple Relative Terms (Dyadic Relatives)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/peirces-1870-lor-e28…
Table 3. Conjugative Terms (Higher Adic Relatives)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/peirces-1870-lor-e28…
Individual terms are taken to denote individual entities falling under
a general term. Peirce uses upper case Roman letters for individual terms,
for example, the individual horses H, H′, H″ falling under the general term h
for horse.
The path to understanding Peirce’s system and its wider implications
for logic can be smoothed by paraphrasing his notations in a variety
of contemporary mathematical formalisms, while preserving the semantics
as much as possible. Remaining faithful to Peirce’s orthography while
adding parallel sets of stylistic conventions will, however, demand close
attention to typography-in-context. Current style sheets for mathematical
texts specify italics for mathematical variables, with upper case letters
for sets and lower case letters for individuals. So we need to keep an
eye out for the difference between the individual X of the genus x and
the element x of the set X as we pass between the two styles of text.
References
==========
• Peirce, C.S. (1870), “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 of Arts and Sciences 9, 317–378, 26 January 1870.
Reprinted, Collected Papers (CP 3.45–149), Chronological Edition (CE 2, 359–429).
Online:
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/25058006
• https://archive.org/details/jstor-25058006
• https://books.google.com/books?id=fFnWmf5oLaoC
• Peirce, C.S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce,
vols. 1–6, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.),
vols. 7–8, Arthur W. Burks (ed.), Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1931–1935, 1958. Cited as (CP volume.paragraph).
• Peirce, C.S., Writings of Charles S. Peirce : A Chronological Edition,
Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington and
Indianapolis, IN, 1981–. Cited as (CE volume, page).
Resources
=========
• Peirce’s 1870 Logic of Relatives
https://oeis.org/wiki/Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives_%E2%80%A2_Overview
Regards,
Jon
Hello CG-ers,
I am consider Prolog+CG as a tool to author an Interactive Fiction.
Iam puzzled by the following Prolog+CG answer.
Universal > Warrior, Weapon.
Warrior > Jedi, Trooper, Machine, Sith.
Weapon > Light_saber, Blaster_gun, Mega_laser.
Machine = Battle_droid, Super_battle_droid, Cyclopedus.
[Machine:Cyclopedus]-
-armed_with->[Mega_laser],
-protected_by1->[Machine:Super_battle_droid]-quantity->[Integer = 14],
-protected_by2->[Machine:Battle_droid]-
-quantity->[Integer = 10],
-armed_with->[Blaster_gun].
When requested :
?- M -quantity-> I.
The only answer is :
{M=[Machine : Super_battle_droid], I=[Integer = 14]}
Why {M=[Machine : Battle_droid], I=[Integer = 10]} is not another
correct answer ?
Regards,
- damien
Azamat,
There is nothing to discuss. AI is an engineering discipline. It is not
a branch of science or philosophy, but it can benefit from any results from
any branch of philosophy or science. Since metaphysics is a branch of
philosophy and AI is disjoint from philosophy, AI is disjoint from
metaphysics. As for the ontology of AI, whenever AI engineers build
something, an ontologist can assign it a place in any catalog of existing
things.
However, philosophy can be used at the metalevel to study and analyze any
subject whatever. Since metaphysics is the metalevel analysis of any
physical phenomena, it can be used to analyze any kind of physical system
developed by AI engineers.
In any subject whatever, many of the practitioners study, analyze, and
comment on the methods and results of other practitioners. When they do
that, they are doing metaphysics. C. S. Peirce (1887) was one of the first
metaphysicians who wrote about logic machines and what they can do. Even
earlier, Ada Lovelace wrote a metaphysical analysis of Babbage's machines.
Both Peirce and Lovelace were metaphysicians who contributed to the
metaphysics of AI. Alan Turing was another major contributor. Marvin
Minsky and John McCarthy were early contributors to the metaphysics of AI,
and they continued their analyses until they died in the early 21st c.
Their methods of analysis and evaluation are just as useful today as they
ever were.
That's all there is to say about the classification. But there is a huge
amount of work to do by metaphysicians of AI, who may also be engineers of
AI. But it's important to keep the two subjects distinct. And the
distinction between them was very clear to Peirce and Lovelace as it was
Turing, Minsky, and McCarthy. There is no reason to blur that
distinction.
John
----------------------------------------
From: "Azamat Abdoullaev" <ontopaedia(a)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 6:17 AM
To: "ontolog-forum" <ontolog-forum(a)googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Is AI Metaphysics/Real Ontology?
I thought it might be a lively topic to discuss.
https://www.quora.com/Is-artificial-intelligence-metaphysics/answer/Kiryl-Pe
rsianov?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=32249760381#