Line 3,158: |
Line 3,158: |
| ==Note 14== | | ==Note 14== |
| | | |
− | <pre>
| + | I am beginning to see how I got confused. It is common in algebra to switch around between different conventions of display, as the momentary fancy happens to strike, and I see that Peirce is no different in this sort of shiftiness than anyone else. A changeover appears to occur especially whenever he shifts from logical contexts to algebraic contexts of application. |
− | | Consider what effects that might 'conceivably'
| |
− | | have practical bearings you 'conceive' the
| |
− | | objects of your 'conception' to have. Then,
| |
− | | your 'conception' of those effects is the
| |
− | | whole of your 'conception' of the object.
| |
− | |
| |
− | | Charles Sanders Peirce,
| |
− | | "Maxim of Pragmaticism", CP 5.438.
| |
| | | |
− | I am beginning to see how I got confused.
| + | In the paper "On the Relative Forms of Quaternions" (CP 3.323), we observe Peirce providing the following sorts of explanation: |
− | It is common in algebra to switch around
| |
− | between different conventions of display,
| |
− | as the momentary fancy happens to strike,
| |
− | and I see that Peirce is no different in
| |
− | this sort of shiftiness than anyone else.
| |
− | A changeover appears to occur especially
| |
− | whenever he shifts from logical contexts
| |
− | to algebraic contexts of application.
| |
− | | |
− | In the paper "On the Relative Forms of Quaternions" (CP 3.323), | |
− | we observe Peirce providing the following sorts of explanation: | |
| | | |
| + | <pre> |
| | If X, Y, Z denote the three rectangular components of a vector, and W denote | | | If X, Y, Z denote the three rectangular components of a vector, and W denote |
| | numerical unity (or a fourth rectangular component, involving space of four | | | numerical unity (or a fourth rectangular component, involving space of four |
Line 3,243: |
Line 3,225: |
| | Charles Sanders Peirce, 'Collected Papers', CP 3.323. | | | Charles Sanders Peirce, 'Collected Papers', CP 3.323. |
| |'Johns Hopkins University Circulars', No. 13, p. 179, 1882. | | |'Johns Hopkins University Circulars', No. 13, p. 179, 1882. |
| + | </pre> |
| | | |
− | This way of talking is the mark of a person who opts | + | This way of talking is the mark of a person who opts to multiply his matrices "on the rignt", as they say. Yet Peirce still continues to call the first element of the ordered pair <math>(I:J)\!</math> its "relate" while calling the second element of the pair <math>(I:J)\!</math> its "correlate". That doesn't comport very well, so far as I can tell, with his customary reading of relative terms, suited more to the multiplication of matrices "on the left". |
− | to multiply his matrices "on the rignt", as they say. | |
− | Yet Peirce still continues to call the first element | |
− | of the ordered pair (I:J) its "relate" while calling | |
− | the second element of the pair (I:J) its "correlate". | |
− | That doesn't comport very well, so far as I can tell, | |
− | with his customary reading of relative terms, suited | |
− | more to the multiplication of matrices "on the left". | |
| | | |
− | So I still have a few wrinkles to iron out before | + | So I still have a few wrinkles to iron out before I can give this story a smooth enough consistency. |
− | I can give this story a smooth enough consistency. | |
− | </pre>
| |
| | | |
| ==Note 15== | | ==Note 15== |