12,080
edits
Changes
Directory talk:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Peirce's 1870 Logic Of Relatives (view source)
Revision as of 13:30, 3 May 2009
, 13:30, 3 May 2009→Commentary Work Area
Line 94:
Line 94:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+o o o o o o o o o o X+o o o o o o o o o o X+0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
|}
|}
−No, looks like I need to think about it some more …
+No, it looks like I need to think about this some more …
+{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
+|
<pre>
<pre>
−a b c d e f g h i
−o o o o o o o o o X
/ \ : | : |
/ \ : | : |
− / \ 0 1 0 1 L
+ / \ 0 1 0 1 L
/ \ : | : |
/ \ : | : |
−o o o o + - + + o o X
+o o o o + - + + o X
\ | / : : | |
\ | / : : | |
− \ | / 0 0 1 1 S
+ \ | / 0 0 1 1 S
\|/ : : | |
\|/ : : | |
−o o o o o o o o o X
−a b c d e f g h i
</pre>
</pre>
+|}
It looks like there is a "servant of every lover of" link between <math>i\!</math> and <math>j\!</math> if and only if <math>i \cdot S ~\supseteq~ L \cdot j.</math> But the vacuous inclusions will make this non-intuitive.
It looks like there is a "servant of every lover of" link between <math>i\!</math> and <math>j\!</math> if and only if <math>i \cdot S ~\supseteq~ L \cdot j.</math> But the vacuous inclusions will make this non-intuitive.