Changes

==Note 14==

==Note 14==

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.

| 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.

In the paper "On the Relative Forms of Quaternions" (CP 3.323), we observe Peirce providing the following sorts of explanation:

 

In the paper "On the Relative Forms of Quaternions" (CP 3.323),

we observe Peirce providing the following sorts of explanation:

| 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

| 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.

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.

==Note 15==

==Note 15==