Changes

<p>(Peirce, CP 3.76).</p>

<p>(Peirce, CP 3.76).</p>

|}

|}

Before I can discuss Peirce's "number of" function in greater detail I will need to deal with an expositional difficulty that I have been very carefully dancing around all this time, but that will no longer abide its assigned place under the rug.

Before I can discuss Peirce's "number of" function in greater detail I will need to deal with an expositional difficulty that I have been very carefully dancing around all this time, but that will no longer abide its assigned place under the rug.

It is possible to work all this out in a very nice way within a very general context of flexible conventions, but not without introducing an order of anachronisms into Peirce's presentation that I am presently trying to avoid as much as possible.  Thus, I will need to experiment with various types of compromise formations.

It is possible to work all this out in a very nice way within a very general context of flexible conventions, but not without introducing an order of anachronisms into Peirce's presentation that I am presently trying to avoid as much as possible.  Thus, I will need to experiment with various types of compromise formations.

The interpretation of Peirce's 1870 "Logic of Relatives" can be facilitated by introducing a few items of background material on relations in general, as regarded from a combinatorial point of view.

The interpretation of Peirce's 1870 "Logic of Relatives" can be facilitated by introducing a few items of background material on relations in general, as regarded from a combinatorial point of view.