Changes

<p>The comma here after 'l' should not be considered as altering at all the meaning of 'l', but as only a subjacent sign, serving to alter the arrangement of the correlates.  (Peirce, CP 3.73).</p>

<p>The comma here after 'l' should not be considered as altering at all the meaning of 'l', but as only a subjacent sign, serving to alter the arrangement of the correlates.  (Peirce, CP 3.73).</p>

</blocquote>

</blockquote>

Just to plant our feet on a more solid stage, let's apply this idea to the Othello example.

Just to plant our feet on a more solid stage, let's apply this idea to the Othello example.

And next we derive the following results:

And next we derive the following results:

{| cellpadding="4"

:{| cellpadding="4"

| 'l',

| 'l',

| =

| =

|}

|}

Now what are we to make of that?

Now what are we to make of that?

If we operate in accordance with Peirce's example of `g`'o'h

If we operate in accordance with Peirce's example of `g`'o'h as the "giver of a horse to an owner of that horse", then we may assume that the associative law and the distributive law are by default in force, allowing us to derive this equation:

as the "giver of a horse to an owner of that horse", then we

may assume that the associative law and the distributive law

are by default in force, allowing us to derive this equation:

'l','s'w = 'l','s'(B +, D +, E)

| 'l','s'w

| =

| 'l','s'(B +, D +, E)

          =  'l','s'B +, 'l','s'D +, 'l','s'E

Evidently what Peirce means by the associative principle, as it applies to this type of product, is that a product of elementary relatives having the form (R:S:T)(S:T)(T) is equal to R but that no other form of product yields a non-null result.  Scanning the implied terms of the triple product tells us that only the following case is non-null:  J = (J:J:D)(J:D)(D).  It follows that:

:{| cellpadding="4"

| 'l','s'w

of elementary relatives having the form (R:S:T)(S:T)(T)

| =

| "lover and servant of a woman"

is non-null:  J = (J:J:D)(J:D)(D).  It follows that:

| =

 

| "lover that is a servant of a woman"

'l','s'w = "lover and servant of a woman"

 

          = "lover that is a servant of a woman"

| =

 

| "lover of a woman that is a servant of that woman"

          = "lover of a woman that is a servant of that woman"

 

          = J

| =

| J

And so what Peirce says makes sense in this case.

And so what Peirce says makes sense in this case.

===Commentary Note 10.6===

===Commentary Note 10.6===