12,080
edits
Changes
Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives (view source)
Revision as of 02:18, 3 April 2009
, 02:18, 3 April 2009→The Signs for Multiplication (cont.)
<p>Thus we see that, after one comma is added, the addition of another does not change the meaning at all, so that whatever has one comma after it must be regarded as having an infinite number.</p>
<p>Thus we see that, after one comma is added, the addition of another does not change the meaning at all, so that whatever has one comma after it must be regarded as having an infinite number.</p>
<p>If, therefore, 'l',,'s'w is not the same as 'l','s'w (as it plainly is not, because the latter means a lover and servant of a woman, and the former a lover of and servant of and same as a woman), this is simply because the writing of the comma alters the arrangement of the correlates.</p>
<p>If, therefore, <math>\mathit{l},\!,\!\mathit{s}\mathrm{w}</math> is not the same as <math>\mathit{l},\!\mathit{s}\mathrm{w}</math> (as it plainly is not, because the latter means a lover and servant of a woman, and the former a lover of and servant of and same as a woman), this is simply because the writing of the comma alters the arrangement of the correlates.</p>
<p>And if we are to suppose that absolute terms are multipliers at all (as mathematical generality demands that we should}, we must regard every term as being a relative requiring an infinite number of correlates to its virtual infinite series "that is --- and is --- and is --- etc."</p>
<p>And if we are to suppose that absolute terms are multipliers at all (as mathematical generality demands that we should}, we must regard every term as being a relative requiring an infinite number of correlates to its virtual infinite series "that is —— and is —— and is —— etc."</p>
<p>Now a relative formed by a comma of course receives its subjacent numbers like any relative, but the question is, What are to be the implied subjacent numbers for these implied correlates?</p>
<p>Now a relative formed by a comma of course receives its subjacent numbers like any relative, but the question is, What are to be the implied subjacent numbers for these implied correlates?</p>