Changes

Consider the following attempts at interpretation:

Consider the following attempts at interpretation:

: 1.  Your concept of x is your concept of the practical effects of x.

:* Your concept of <math>x\!</math> is your concept of the practical effects of <math>x.\!</math>

Not exactly.  It seems a bit more like:

Not exactly.  It seems a bit more like:

: 2.  Your concept of x is your concept of your-conceived-practical-effects of x.

:* Your concept of <math>x\!</math> is your concept of your-conceived-practical-effects of <math>x.\!</math>

Converting to a third person point of view:

Converting to a third person point of view:

: 3.  j's concept of x is j's concept of j's-conceived-practical-effects of x.

:* <math>j\!</math>'s concept of <math>x\!</math> is <math>j\!</math>'s concept of <math>j\!</math>'s-conceived-practical-effects of <math>x.\!</math>

An ordinary closure principle looks like this:

An ordinary closure principle looks like this:

: C(x) = C(C(x))

: <math>C(x) = C(C(x))\!</math>

It is tempting to try and read the pragmatic maxim as if it had the following form, where C and E are supposed to be a 1-adic functions for "concept of" and "effects of", respectively.

It is tempting to try and read the pragmatic maxim as if it had the following form, where <math>C\!</math> and <math>E\!</math> are supposed to be a 1-adic functions for "concept of" and "effects of", respectively.

1-adic functional case:

: 1-adic functional case:

: C(x) = C(E(x))

: <math>C(x) = C(E(x))\!</math>

But it is really more like:

But it is really more like:

2-adic functional case:

: 2-adic functional case:

: C(y, x) = C(y, E(y, x))

: <math>C(y, x) = C(y, E(y, x))\!</math>

where:

where:

# y = you.

: <math>y\!</math> = you.

# C(y, x) = the concept that you have of x.

 

# E(y, x) = the effects that you know of x.

: <math>C(y, x)\!</math> = the concept that you have of <math>x.\!</math>

 

: <math>E(y, x)\!</math> = the effects that you know of <math>x.\!</math>

<pre>

<pre>

</pre>

</pre>

The concept that you have of x is the concept that you have of the effects that you know of x.

The concept that you have of <math>x\!</math> is the concept that you have of the effects that you know of <math>x.\!</math>

It is also very likely that the functional interpretations will not do the trick, and that 3-adic relations will need to be used instead.

It is also very likely that the functional interpretations will not do the trick, and that 3-adic relations will need to be used instead.

'''Source.'''  [http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/ontology/msg04316.html Jon Awbrey (08 Aug 2002), "Inquiry Driven Systems : Note 23", Ontology List, Peirce List].

'''Source.'''  [http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/ontology/msg04316.html Jon Awbrey (08 Aug 2002), "Inquiry Driven Systems : Note 23", Ontology List, Peirce List].