Changes

</pre>

</pre>

So if somebody asks you, say, "What is <math>g\!</math>?", you can say, "I don't know for certain, but in practice its effects go a bit like this:  Converting <math>e\!</math> to <math>g,\!</math> <math>f\!</math> to <math>h,\!</math> <math>g\!</math> to <math>e,\!</math> <math>h\!</math> to <math>f.\!</math>"

So if somebody asks you, say, "What is <math>\operatorname{g}</math>?", you can say, "I don't know for certain, but in practice its effects go a bit like this:  Converting <math>\operatorname{e}</math> to <math>\operatorname{g},</math> <math>\operatorname{f}</math> to <math>\operatorname{h},</math> <math>\operatorname{g}</math> to <math>\operatorname{e},</math> <math>\operatorname{h}</math> to <math>\operatorname{f}.</math>"

I will have to check this out later on, but my impression is that Peirce tended to lean toward the other brand of regular, the ''left representation'' or the ''ante-representation'' of the groups that he treated in his earliest manuscripts and papers.  I believe that this was because he thought of the actions on the pattern of dyadic relative terms like ''aftermath of''.

I will have to check this out later on, but my impression is that Peirce tended to lean toward the other brand of regular, the ''left representation'' or the ''ante-representation'' of the groups that he treated in his earliest manuscripts and papers.  I believe that this was because he thought of the actions on the pattern of dyadic relative terms like ''aftermath of''.