Changes

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Thursday May 02, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6 (view source)

Revision as of 18:09, 28 August 2014

108,038 bytes added ,  18:09, 28 August 2014
add cats & navigation bar
Line 9,231: Line 9,231:     
Consider any coordinate position <math>(s, i)\!</math> in the plane <math>S \times I.\!</math>  If <math>(s, i)\!</math> is not in <math>L_{SI}\!</math> then there can be no element <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> in <math>L,\!</math> therefore we may restrict our attention to positions <math>(s, i)\!</math> in <math>L_{SI},\!</math> knowing that there exist at least <math>|L_{SI}| = 8\!</math> elements in <math>L,\!</math> and seeking only to determine what objects <math>o\!</math> exist such that <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> is an element in the objective ''fiber'' of <math>(s, i).\!</math>  In other words, for what <math>{o \in O}\!</math> is <math>(o, s, i) \in \mathrm{proj}_{SI}^{-1}((s, i))?\!</math>  The fact that <math>L_{OS}\!</math> has exactly one element <math>(o, s)\!</math> for each coordinate <math>s \in S\!</math> and that <math>L_{OI}\!</math> has exactly one element <math>(o, i)\!</math> for each coordinate <math>i \in I,\!</math> plus the &ldquo;coincidence&rdquo; of it being the same <math>o\!</math> at any one choice for <math>(s, i),\!</math> tells us that <math>L\!</math> has just the one element <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> over each point of <math>S \times I.\!</math>  This proves that both <math>L(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>L(\text{B})\!</math> are reducible in an informational sense to triples of dyadic relations, that is, they are ''dyadically reducible''.
 
Consider any coordinate position <math>(s, i)\!</math> in the plane <math>S \times I.\!</math>  If <math>(s, i)\!</math> is not in <math>L_{SI}\!</math> then there can be no element <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> in <math>L,\!</math> therefore we may restrict our attention to positions <math>(s, i)\!</math> in <math>L_{SI},\!</math> knowing that there exist at least <math>|L_{SI}| = 8\!</math> elements in <math>L,\!</math> and seeking only to determine what objects <math>o\!</math> exist such that <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> is an element in the objective ''fiber'' of <math>(s, i).\!</math>  In other words, for what <math>{o \in O}\!</math> is <math>(o, s, i) \in \mathrm{proj}_{SI}^{-1}((s, i))?\!</math>  The fact that <math>L_{OS}\!</math> has exactly one element <math>(o, s)\!</math> for each coordinate <math>s \in S\!</math> and that <math>L_{OI}\!</math> has exactly one element <math>(o, i)\!</math> for each coordinate <math>i \in I,\!</math> plus the &ldquo;coincidence&rdquo; of it being the same <math>o\!</math> at any one choice for <math>(s, i),\!</math> tells us that <math>L\!</math> has just the one element <math>(o, s, i)\!</math> over each point of <math>S \times I.\!</math>  This proves that both <math>L(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>L(\text{B})\!</math> are reducible in an informational sense to triples of dyadic relations, that is, they are ''dyadically reducible''.
 +
 +
===6.36. Irreducibly Triadic Relations===
 +
 +
Most likely, any triadic relation <math>L \subseteq X \times Y \times Z\!</math> imposed on arbitrary domains <math>X, Y, Z\!</math> could find use as a sign relation, provided it embodies any constraint at all, in other words, so long as it forms a proper subset of its total space, a relationship symbolized by writing <math>L \subset X \times Y \times Z.\!</math>  However, triadic relations of this sort are not guaranteed to form the most natural examples of sign relations.
 +
 +
In order to show what an irreducibly triadic relation looks like, this Section presents a pair of triadic relations that have the same dyadic projections, and thus cannot be distinguished from each other on this basis alone.  As it happens, these examples of triadic relations can be discussed independently of sign relational concerns, but structures of their general ilk are frequently found arising in signal-theoretic applications, and they are undoubtedly closely associated with problems of reliable coding and communication.
 +
 +
Tables&nbsp;74.1 and 75.1 show a pair of irreducibly triadic relations <math>L_0\!</math> and <math>L_1,\!</math> respectively.  Tables&nbsp;74.2 to 74.4 and Tables&nbsp;75.2 to 75.4 show the dyadic relations comprising <math>\mathrm{Proj}^{(2)} L_0\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Proj}^{(2)} L_1,\!</math> respectively.
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:75%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 74.1} ~~ \text{Relation} ~ L_0 =\{ (x, y, z) \in \mathbb{B}^3 : x + y + z = 0 \}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>x\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>y\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>z\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\0\\1\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\1\\0\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:50%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 74.2} ~~ \text{Dyadic Projection} ~ (L_0)_{12}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>x\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>y\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\0\\1\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:50%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 74.3} ~~ \text{Dyadic Projection} ~ (L_0)_{13}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>x\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>z\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\0\\1\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\1\\0\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:50%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 74.4} ~~ \text{Dyadic Projection} ~ (L_0)_{23}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>y\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>z\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\1\\0\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:75%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 75.1} ~~ \text{Relation} ~ L_1 =\{ (x, y, z) \in \mathbb{B}^3 : x + y + z = 1 \}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>x\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>y\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>z\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\0\\1\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}1\\0\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:50%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 75.2} ~~ \text{Dyadic Projection} ~ (L_1)_{12}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>x\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>y\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\0\\1\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:50%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 75.3} ~~ \text{Dyadic Projection} ~ (L_1)_{13}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>x\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>z\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\0\\1\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}1\\0\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:50%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 75.4} ~~ \text{Dyadic Projection} ~ (L_1)_{23}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>y\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>z\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}0\\1\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>\begin{matrix}1\\0\\0\\1\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
The relations <math>L_0, L_1 \subseteq \mathbb{B}^3\!</math> are defined by the following equations, with algebraic operations taking place as in <math>\text{GF}(2),\!</math> that is, with <math>1 + 1 = 0.\!</math>
 +
 +
# The triple <math>(x, y, z)\!</math> in <math>\mathbb{B}^3\!</math> belongs to <math>L_0\!</math> if and only if <math>{x + y + z = 0}.\!</math>  Thus, <math>L_0\!</math> is the set of even-parity bit vectors, with <math>x + y = z.\!</math>
 +
# The triple <math>(x, y, z)\!</math> in <math>\mathbb{B}^3\!</math> belongs to <math>L_1\!</math> if and only if <math>{x + y + z = 1}.\!</math>  Thus, <math>L_1\!</math> is the set of odd-parity bit vectors, with <math>x + y = z + 1.\!</math>
 +
 +
The corresponding projections of <math>\mathrm{Proj}^{(2)} L_0\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Proj}^{(2)} L_1\!</math> are identical.  In fact, all six projections, taken at the level of logical abstraction, constitute precisely the same dyadic relation, isomorphic to the whole of <math>\mathbb{B} \times \mathbb{B}\!</math> and expressed by the universal constant proposition <math>1 : \mathbb{B} \times \mathbb{B} \to \mathbb{B}.\!</math>  In summary:
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{array}{lllll}
 +
(L_0)_{12} & = & (L_1)_{12} & \cong & \mathbb{B}^2
 +
\\[4pt]
 +
(L_0)_{13} & = & (L_1)_{13} & \cong & \mathbb{B}^2
 +
\\[4pt]
 +
(L_0)_{23} & = & (L_1)_{23} & \cong & \mathbb{B}^2
 +
\end{array}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
Thus, <math>L_0\!</math> and <math>L_1\!</math> are both examples of irreducibly triadic relations.
 +
 +
===6.37. Propositional Types===
 +
 +
This Section describes a formal system of ''type expressions'' that are analogous to formulas of propositional logic and discusses their use as a calculus of predicates for classifying, analyzing, and drawing typical inferences about <math>k\!</math>-place relations, in particular, for reasoning about the results of operations on relations and about the properties of their transformations and combinations.
 +
 +
'''Definition.'''  Given a cartesian product <math>X \times Y,\!</math> an ordered pair <math>(x, y) \in X \times Y\!</math> has the type <math>S \cdot T,\!</math> written <math>(x, y) : S \cdot T,\!</math> if and only if <math>x \in S \subseteq X\!</math> and <math>y \in T \subseteq Y.\!</math>  Notice that an ordered pair may have many types.
 +
 +
'''Definition.'''  A relation <math>L \subseteq X \times Y\!</math> has type <math>S \cdot T,\!</math> written <math>L : S \cdot T,\!</math> if and only if every <math>(x, y) \in L\!</math> has type <math>S \cdot T,\!</math> that is, if and only if <math>L \subseteq S \times T\!</math> for some <math>S \subseteq X\!</math> and <math>T \subseteq Y.\!</math>
 +
 +
'''Notation.'''  Parentheses in the Courier or Teletype font, <math>\texttt{( ... )},\!</math> are used to indicate the negations of propositions and the complements of sets.  When a <math>k\!</math>-place relation <math>L\!</math> is initially given relative to the domains <math>X_1, \ldots, X_k\!</math> and a set <math>S\!</math> is mentioned as a subset of one of them, say <math>S \subseteq X_j,\!</math> then the ''relevant complement'' of <math>S\!</math> in such a context is the one taken relative to <math>X_j.\!</math>  Thus we have the following equivalents.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>\texttt{(} S \texttt{)} ~=~ -\!S ~=~ X_j - S\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
In case of ambiguities that are not resolved by context, indices may be used as follows.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>\texttt{(} S \texttt{)}_j ~=~ X_j - S\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
In any case, the intended term can always be written out in full, as <math>X_j - S.\!</math>
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
<center>'''Fragments'''</center>
 +
 +
Consider a relation <math>L\!</math> of the following type.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>L : \texttt{(} S \texttt{(} T \texttt{))}\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
[The following piece occurs in &sect; 6.35.]
 +
 +
The set of triples of dyadic relations, with pairwise cartesian products chosen in a pre-arranged order from a triple of three sets <math>(X, Y, Z),\!</math> is called the ''dyadic explosion'' of <math>X \times Y \times Z.\!</math>  This object is denoted <math>\mathrm{Explo}(X, Y, Z ~|~ 2),\!</math> read as the ''explosion of <math>X \times Y \times Z\!</math> by twos'', or more simply as <math>X, Y, Z ~\mathrm{choose}~ 2,\!</math> and defined as follows:
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>\mathrm{Explo}(X, Y, Z ~|~ 2) ~=~ \mathrm{Pow}(X \times Y) \times \mathrm{Pow}(X \times Z) \times \mathrm{Pow}(Y \times Z)\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
This domain is defined well enough to serve the immediate purposes of this section, but later it will become necessary to examine its construction more closely.
 +
 +
[Maybe the following piece belongs there, too.]
 +
 +
Just to provide a hint of what's at stake, consider the following suggestive identity:
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>2^{XY} \times 2^{XZ} \times 2^{YZ} ~=~ 2^{(XY + XY + YZ)}\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
What sense would have to be found for the sums on the right in order to interpret this equation as a set theoretic isomorphism?  Answering this question requires the concept of a ''co-product'', roughly speaking, a &ldquo;disjointed union&rdquo; of sets.  By the time this discussion has detailed the forms of indexing necessary to maintain these constructions, it should have become patently obvious that the forms of analysis and synthesis that are called on to achieve the putative reductions to and reconstructions from dyadic relations in actual fact never really leave the realm of genuinely triadic relations, but merely reshuffle its contents in various convenient fashions.
 +
 +
===6.38. Considering the Source===
 +
 +
There are several ways to contemplate the supplementation of signs, the sorts of augmentation that are crucial to meaning in the case of indices.  Some approaches are analytic, in the sense that they regard signs as derivative compounds and try to break up the unitary concept of an individual sign into a congeries of seemingly more real, more actual, or more determinate sign instances.  Other approaches are synthetic, in the sense that they accept a given collection of signs at face value and try to reconstruct more objective realities through the formation of abstract categories on this basis.
 +
 +
====6.38.1. Attributed Signs====
 +
 +
One type of analytic method takes it as a maxim for the logic of context that &ldquo;Every sign or text is indexed by the context in which it occurs&rdquo;.  This means that all signs, including indices, are themselves indexed, though initially only tacitly, by the objective situation, the syntactic context, and the actual interpreter that makes use of them.
 +
 +
To begin formalizing this brand of supplementation, it is necessary to mark salient aspects of the situational, contextual, and inclusively interpretive features of sign usage that were previously held tacit.  In effect, signs once regarded as primitive objects need to be newly analyzed as categorical abstractions that cover multitudes of existential sign instances or ''signs in use''.
 +
 +
One way to develop these dimensions of the <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> example is to articulate the interpretive parameters of signs by means of subscripts or superscripts attached to the signs or their quotations, in this way forming a corresponding set of ''situated signs'' or ''attributed remarks''.
 +
 +
The attribution of signs to their interpreters preserves the original object domain but produces an expanded syntactic domain, a corresponding set of ''attributed signs''.  In our <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> example this gives the following domains.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{array}{ccl}
 +
O & = &
 +
\{ \text{A}, \text{B} \}
 +
\\[6pt]
 +
S & = &
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\}
 +
\\[6pt]
 +
I & = &
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\}
 +
\end{array}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
Table&nbsp;76 displays the results of indexing every sign of the <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> example with a superscript indicating its source or ''exponent'', namely, the interpreter who actively communicates or transmits the sign.  The operation of attribution produces two new sign relations, but it turns out that both sign relations have the same form and content, so a single Table will do.  The new sign relation generated by this operation will be denoted <math>\mathrm{At} (\text{A}, \text{B})\!</math> and called the ''attributed sign relation'' for the <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> example.
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 76.} ~~ \text{Attributed Sign Relation for Interpreters A and B}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
Thus informed, the semiotic equivalence relation for interpreter <math>\text{A}\!</math> yields the following semiotic equations.
 +
 +
{| cellpadding="10"
 +
| width="10%" | &nbsp;
 +
| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}]_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}]_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}]_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}]_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| width="10%" | or
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}\!</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>=_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}\!</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>=_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}\!</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>=_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
In comparison, the semiotic equivalence relation for interpreter <math>\text{B}\!</math> yields the following semiotic equations.
 +
 +
{| cellpadding="10"
 +
| width="10%" | &nbsp;
 +
| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}]_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}]_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}]_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}]_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| width="10%" | or
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}\!</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>=_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}\!</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>=_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}\!</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" | <math>=_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
Consequently, the semiotic equivalence relations for <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> both induce the same semiotic partition on <math>S,\!</math> namely, the following.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>
 +
\{ \{
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}
 +
\}~,~\{
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}
 +
\} \}.\!
 +
</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
By means of a simple attribution step a certain level of congruity has been reached in the community of interpretation comprised of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}.\!</math>  This new-found agreement on what is abstractly a single semiotic equivalence relation means that its equivalence classes reconstruct the structure of the object domain within the parts of the corresponding semiotic partition.  This allows a measure of objectivity or inter-subjectivity to be predicated of the sign relation's representation. 
 +
 +
An instance of <math>\text{Y}\!</math> using <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> is considered to be an objective event, the kind of happening to which all suitably placed observers can point, and adverting to an occurrence of <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime\text{Y}}\!</math> is more specific and less vague than resorting to instances of <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> as if being issued by anonymous sources.  The situated sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime\text{Y}}\!</math> is a ''wider sign'' than <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in the sense that it takes in a broader field of view on the interpretive situation and provides more information about the context of use.  As to the reception of attributed remarks, the interpreter that can recognize signs of the form <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime\text{Y}}\!</math> is one that knows what it means to ''consider the source''.
 +
 +
It is best to read the superscripts on attributed signs as accentuations and integral parts of the quotation marks, taking <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \ldots {}^{\prime\prime\text{A}}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \ldots {}^{\prime\prime\text{B}}\!</math> as variant inflections of <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \ldots {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math>  Thus, I can refer to the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime\text{Y}}\!</math> just as I would refer to the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in the present informal context, without any additional marks of quotation.
 +
 +
Taking a cue from this usage, the ordinary quotes that I use to mark salient relationships of signs and expressions with respect to the informal context can now be regarded as quotes that I myself, operating as a casual interpreter, tacitly index.  Even without knowing the complete sign relation that I have in mind, the one that I presumably use to conduct this discussion, the sign relation that <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{I} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> represents can nevertheless be partially formalized by means of a certain functional equation, namely, the following equation between semantic functions:
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \ldots {}^{\prime\prime} ~=~ {}^{\backprime\backprime} \ldots {}^{\prime\prime\text{I}}\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
By way of vocal expression, the attributed sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime\text{Y}}\!</math> can be pronounced in any of the following ways.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{array}{l}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime} ~\text{quoth}~ \text{Y}
 +
\\[4pt]
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime} ~\text{said by}~ \text{Y}
 +
\\[4pt]
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime} ~\text{used by}~ \text{Y}
 +
\end{array}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
To facilitate visual imagery, each token of the type <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime\text{Y}}\!</math> can be pictured as a specific occasion where the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{X} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> is being used or issued by the interpreter <math>\text{Y}.\!</math>
 +
 +
The construal of objects as classes of attributed signs leads to a measure of inter-subjective agreement between the interpreters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}.\!</math>  Something like this must be the goal of any system of communication, and analogous forms of congruity and gregarity are likely to be found in any system for establishing mutually intelligible responses and maintaining socially coordinated practices.
 +
 +
Nevertheless, the particular types of &ldquo;analytic&rdquo; solutions that were proposed for resolving the conflict of interpretations between <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> are conceptually unsatisfactory in several ways.  The constructions instituted retain the quality of hypotheses, especially due to the level of speculation about fundamental objects that is required to support them.  There remains something fictional and imaginary about the nature of the object instances that are posited to form the ontological infrastructure, the supposedly more determinate strata of being that are presumed to anchor the initial objects of discussion.
 +
 +
Founding objects on a particular selection of object instances is always initially an arbitrary choice, a meet response to a judgment call and a responsibility that cannot be avoided, but still a bit of guesswork that needs to be tested for its reality in practice.
 +
 +
This means that the postulated objects of objects cannot have their reality probed and proved in detail but evaluated only in terms of their conceivable practical effects.
 +
 +
====6.38.2. Augmented Signs====
 +
 +
One synthetic method &hellip;
 +
 +
Suppose now that each of the agents <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> reflects on the situational context of their discussion and observes on every occasion of utterance exactly who is saying what.  By this critically reflective operation of ''considering the source'' each interpreter is empowered to create, in effect, an ''extended token'' or ''situated sign'' out of each utterance by indexing it with the proper name of its utterer.  Though it arises by reflection, the augmented sign is not a higher order of abstraction so much as a restoration or reconstitution of what was lost by abstracting the sign from the signer in the first instance.
 +
 +
In order to continue the development of this example, I need to employ a more precise system of marking quotations in order to keep track of who says what and in what kinds of context.  To help with this, I use raised angle brackets <math>{}^\langle \ldots {}^\rangle\!</math> on a par with ordinary quotation marks <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \ldots {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to call attention to pieces of text as signs or expressions.  The angle quotes are especially useful for embedded quotations and for text regarded as used or mentioned by interpreters other than myself, for instance, by the fictional characters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}.\!</math>  Whenever possible, I save ordinary quotes for the outermost level, the one that interfaces with the context of informal discussion.
 +
 +
A notation like <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime ~ \langle\langle} \text{A} {}^\rangle, \text{B}, \text{C} {}^{\rangle ~ \prime\prime}\!</math> is intended to indicate the construction of an extended (attributed, indexed, or situated) sign, in this case, by enclosing an initial sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in a contextual envelope <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime ~ \langle\langle} ~\underline{~}~ {}^\rangle, ~\underline{~}~, ~\underline{~}~ {}^{\rangle ~ \prime\prime}\!</math> and inscribing it with relevant items of situational data, as represented by the signs <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{C} {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math>
 +
 +
# When a salient component of the situational data represents an observation of the agent <math>\text{B}\!</math> communicating the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},\!</math> then the compressed form <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime ~ \langle\langle} \text{A} {}^\rangle \text{B}, \text{C} {}^{\rangle ~ \prime\prime}\!</math> can be used to mark that fact.
 +
# When there is no additional contextual information beyond the marking of a sign's source, the form <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime ~ \langle\langle} \text{A} {}^\rangle \text{B} {}^{\rangle ~ \prime\prime}\!</math> suffices to say that <math>\text{B}\!</math> said <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}.\!</math>
 +
 +
With this last modification, angle quotes become like ascribed quotes or attributed remarks, indexed with the name of the interpretive agent that issued the message in question.  In sum, the notation <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime ~ \langle\langle} \text{A} {}^\rangle \text{B} {}^{\rangle ~ \prime\prime}\!</math> is intended to situate the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> in the context of its contemplated use and to index the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> with the name of the interpreter that is considered to be using it on a given occasion.
 +
 +
The notation <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime ~ \langle\langle} \text{A} {}^\rangle \text{B} {}^{\rangle ~ \prime\prime},~\!</math> read <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime ~ \langle} \text{A} {}^\rangle ~\text{quoth}~ \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> or <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime ~ \langle} \text{A} {}^\rangle ~\text{used by}~ \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},\!</math> is an expression that indicates the use of the sign <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> by the interpreter <math>\text{B}.\!</math>  The expression inside the outer quotes is referred to as an ''indexed quotation'', since it is indexed by the name of the interpreter to which it is referred.
 +
 +
Since angle quotes with a blank index are equivalent to ordinary quotes, we have the following equivalence.  [Not sure about this.]
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} ~ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle \text{B} ~ {}^{\prime\prime} ~=~ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^\rangle \text{B} {}^\rangle\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
Enclosing a piece of text with raised angle brackets and following it with the name of an interpreter is intended to call to mind &hellip;
 +
 +
The augmentation of signs by the names of their interpreters preserves the original object domain but produces an extended syntactic domain.  In our <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> example this gives the following domains.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{array}{lll}
 +
O & = & \{ \text{A}, \text{B} \}
 +
\end{array}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{array}{lllllll}
 +
S
 +
& = &
 +
\{ &
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
&
 +
\\[4pt]
 +
& & &
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
& \}
 +
\\[10pt]
 +
I
 +
& = &
 +
\{ &
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
&
 +
\\[4pt]
 +
& & &
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
& \}
 +
\end{array}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
The situated sign or indexed expression <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> presents the sign or expression <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> as used by the interpreter <math>\text{B}.\!</math>  In other words, the sign is indexed by the name of an interpreter to indicate a use of that sign by that interpreter.  Thus, <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> augments <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to form a new and more complete sign by including additional information about the context of its transmission, in particular, by the consideration of its source.
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 77.} ~~ \text{Augmented Sign Relation for Interpreters A and B}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{A} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{B} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{i} {}^\rangle ]_\text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} [ {}^\langle \text{u} {}^\rangle ]_\text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
===6.39. Prospective Indices : Pointers to Future Work===
 +
 +
In the effort to unify dynamical, connectionist, and symbolic approaches to intelligent systems, indices supply important stepping stones between the sorts of signs that remain bound to circumscribed theaters of action and the kinds of signs that can function globally as generic symbols.  Current technology presents an array of largely accidental discoveries that have been brought into being for implementing indexical systems.  Bringing systematic study to bear on this variety of accessory devices and trying to discern within the wealth of incidental features their essential principles and effective ingredients could help to improve the traction this form of bridge affords.
 +
 +
In the points where this project addresses work on the indexical front, a primary task is to show how the ''actual connections'' promised by the definition of indexical signs can be translated into system-theoretic terms and implemented by means of the class of ''dynamic connections'' that can persist in realistic systems.
 +
 +
An offshoot of this investigation would be to explore how indices like pointer variables could be realized within &ldquo;connectionist&rdquo; systems.  There is no reason in principle why this cannot be done, but I think that pragmatic reasons and practical success will force the contemplation of higher orders of connectivity than those currently fashioned in two-dimensional arrays of connections.  To be specific, further advances will require the generative power of genuinely triadic relations to be exploited to the fullest possible degree.
 +
 +
To avert one potential misunderstanding of what this entails, computing with triadic relations is not really a live option unless the algebraic tools and logical calculi needed to do so are developed to greater levels of facility than they are at present.  Merely officiating over the storage of &ldquo;dead letters&rdquo; in higher dimensional arrays will not do the trick.  Turning static sign relations into the orders of dynamic sign processes that can support live inquiries will demand new means of representation and new methods of computation.
 +
 +
To fulfill their intended roles, a formal calculus for sign relations and the associated implementation must be able to address and restore the full dimensionalities of the existential and social matrices in which inquiry takes place.  Informational constraints that define objective situations of interest need to be freed from the locally linear confines of the &ldquo;dia-matrix&rdquo; and reposted within the realm of the &ldquo;tri-matrix&rdquo;, that is, reconstituted in a manner that allows critical reflection on their form and content.
 +
 +
The descriptive and conceptual architectures needed to frame this task must allow space for interlacing forms of &ldquo;open work&rdquo;, projects that anticipate the desirability of higher order relations and build in the capability for higher order reflections at the very beginning, and do not merely hope against hope to arrange these capacities as afterthoughts.
 +
 +
===6.40. Dynamic and Evaluative Frameworks===
 +
 +
The sign relations <math>L(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>L(\text{B})\!</math> are lacking in several dimensions of realistic properties that would ordinarily be more fully developed in the kinds of sign relations that are found to be involved in inquiry.  This section initiates a discussion of two such dimensions, the ''dynamic'' and the ''evaluative'' aspects of sign relations, and it treats the materials that are organized along these lines at two broad levels, either ''within'' or ''between'' particular examples of sign relations.
 +
 +
# The ''dynamic dimension'' deals with change.  Thus, it details the forms of diversity that sign relations distribute in a temporal process.  It is concerned with the transitions that take place from element to element within a sign relation and also with the changes that take place from one whole sign relation to another, thereby generating various types and levels of ''sign&nbsp;process''.
 +
# The ''evaluative dimension'' deals with goals.  Thus, it details the forms of diversity that sign relations contribute to a definite purpose.  It is concerned with the comparisons that can be made on a scale of values between the elements within a sign relation and also between whole sign relations themselves, with a view toward deciding which is better for a ''designated&nbsp;purpose''.
 +
 +
At the primary level of analysis, one is concerned with the application of these two dimensions ''within'' particular sign relations.  At every subsequent level of analysis, one deals with the dynamic transitions and evaluative comparisons that can be contemplated ''between'' particular sign relations.  In order to cover all these dimensions, types, and levels of diversity in a unified way, there is need for a substantive term that can allow one to indicate any of the above objects of discussion and thought &mdash; including elements of sign relations, particular sign relations, and states of systems &mdash; and to regard it as an &ldquo;object, sign, or state in a certain stage of construction&rdquo;.  I will use the word ''station'' for this purpose.
 +
 +
In order to organize the discussion of these two dimensions, both within and between particular sign relations, and to coordinate their ordinary relation to each other in practical situations, it pays to develop a combined form of ''dynamic evaluative framework'' (DEF), similar in design and utility to the objective frameworks set up earlier.
 +
 +
A ''dynamic evaluative framework'' (DEF) encompasses two dimensions of comparison between stations:
 +
 +
<ol style="list-style-type:decimal">
 +
 +
<li>
 +
<p>A dynamic dimension, as swept out by a process of changing stations, permits comparison between stations in terms of before and after on a scale of temporal order.</p>
 +
 +
<p>A terminal station on a dynamic dimension is called a ''stable station''.</p></li>
 +
 +
<li>
 +
<p>An evaluative dimension permits comparison between stations on a scale of values.</p>
 +
 +
<p>A terminal station on an evaluative dimension is called a ''canonical station'' or a ''standard station''.</p></li></ol>
 +
 +
A station that is both stable and standard is called a ''normal station''.
 +
 +
Consider the following analogies or correspondences that exist between different orders of sign relational structure:
 +
 +
# Just as a sign represents its object and becomes associated with more or less equivalent signs in the minds of interpretive agents, the corpus of signs that embodies a SOI represents in a collective way its own proper object, intended objective, or ''try at objectivity'' (TAO).
 +
# Just as the relationship of a sign to its semantic objects and interpretive associates can be formalized within a single sign relation, the relation of a dynamically changing SOI to its reference environment, developmental goals, and desired characteristics of interpretive performance can be formalized by means of a higher order sign relation, one that further establishes a grounds of comparison for relating the growing SOI, not only to its former and future selves, but to a diverse company of other SOIs.
 +
 +
From an outside perspective the distinction between a sign and its object is usually regarded as obvious, though agents operating in the thick of a SOI often act as though they cannot see the difference.  Nevertheless, as a rule in practice, a sign is not a good thing to be confused with its object.  Even in the rare and usually controversial cases where an identity of substance is contemplated, usually only for the sake of argument, there is still a distinction of roles to be maintained between the sign and its object.  Just so, &hellip;
 +
 +
Although there are aspects of inquiry processes that operate within the single sign relation, the characteristic features of inquiry do not come into full bloom until one considers the whole diversity of dynamically developing sign relations.  Because it will be some time before this discussion acquires the formal power it needs to deal with higher order sign relations, these issues will need to be treated on an informal basis as they arise, and often in cursory and ''ad&nbsp;hoc'' manner.
 +
 +
===6.41. Elective and Motive Forces===
 +
 +
The <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> example, in the fragmentary aspects of its sign relations presented so far, is unrealistic in its simplification of semantic issues, lacking a full development of many kinds of attributes that almost always become significant in situations of practical interest.  Just to mention two related features of importance to inquiry that are missing from this example, there is no sense of directional process and no dimension of differential value defined either within or between the semantic equivalence classes.
 +
 +
When there is a clear sense of dynamic tendency or purposeful direction driving the passage from signs to interpretants in the connotative project of a sign relation, then the study moves from sign relations, statically viewed, to genuine sign processes.  In the pragmatic theory of signs, such processes are usually dignified with the name ''semiosis'' and their systematic investigation is called ''semiotics''.
 +
 +
Further, when this dynamism or purpose is consistent and confluent with a differential value system defined on the syntactic domain, then the sign process in question becomes a candidate for the kind of clarity-gaining, canon-seeking process, capable of supporting learning and reasoning, that I classify as an ''inquiry driven system''.
 +
 +
There is a mathematical turn of thought that I will often take in discussing these kinds of issues.  Instead of saying that a system has no attribute of a particular type, I will say that it has the attribute, but in a degenerate or trivial sense.  This is merely a strategy of classification that allows one to include null cases in a taxonomy and to make use of continuity arguments in passing from case to case in a class of examples.  Viewed in this way, each of the sign relations <math>L(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>L(\text{B})\!</math> can be taken to exhibit a trivial dynamic process and a trivial standard of value defined on the syntactic domain.
 +
 +
===6.42. Sign Processes : A Start===
 +
 +
To articulate the dynamic aspects of a sign relation, one can interpret it as determining a discrete or finite state transition system.  In the usual ways of doing this, the states of the system are given by the elements of the syntactic domain, while the elements of the object domain correspond to input data or control parameters that affect transitions from signs to interpretant signs in the syntactic state space.
 +
 +
Working from these principles alone, there are numerous ways that a plausible dynamics can be invented for a given sign relation.  I will concentrate on two principal forms of dynamic realization, or two ways of interpreting and augmenting sign relations as sign processes.
 +
 +
One form of realization lets each element of the object domain <math>O\!</math> correspond to the observed presence of an object in the environment of the systematic agent.  In this interpretation, the object <math>x\!</math> acts as an input datum that causes the system <math>Y\!</math> to shift from whatever sign state it happens to occupy at a given moment to a random sign state in <math>[x]_Y.\!</math>  Expressed in a cognitive vein, <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} Y ~\mathrm{notes}~ x {}^{\prime\prime}.</math>
 +
 +
Another form of realization lets each element of the object domain <math>O\!</math> correspond to the autonomous intention of the systematic agent to denote an object, achieve an objective, or broadly speaking to accomplish any other purpose with respect to an object in its domain.  In this interpretation, the object <math>x\!</math> is a control parameter that brings the system <math>Y\!</math> into line with realizing a target set <math>[x]_Y.\!</math>
 +
 +
Tables&nbsp;78 and 79 show how the sign relations for <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> can be filled out as finite state processes in conformity with the interpretive principles just described.  Rather than letting the actions go undefined for some combinations of inputs in <math>O\!</math> and states in <math>S,\!</math> transitions have been added that take the interpreters from whatever else they might have been thinking about to the semantic equivalence classes of their objects.  In either modality of realization, cognitive-oriented or control-oriented, the abstract structure of the resulting sign process is exactly the same.
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 78.} ~~ \text{Sign Process of Interpreter A}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 79.} ~~ \text{Sign Process of Interpreter B}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
Treated in accord with these interpretations, the sign relations <math>L(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>L(\text{B})\!</math> constitute partially degenerate cases of dynamic processes, in which the transitions are totally non-deterministic up to semantic equivalence classes but still manage to preserve those classes.  Whether construed as present observation or projective speculation, the most significant feature to note about a sign process is how the contemplation of an object or objective leads the system from a less determined to a more determined condition.
 +
 +
On reflection, one observes that these processes are not completely trivial since they preserve the structure of their semantic partitions.  In fact, each sign process preserves the entire topology &mdash; the family of sets closed under finite intersections and arbitrary unions &mdash; that is generated by its semantic equivalence classes.  These topologies, <math>\mathrm{Top}(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Top}(\text{B}),\!</math> can be viewed as partially ordered sets, <math>\mathrm{Poset}(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Poset}(\text{B}),\!</math> by taking the inclusion ordering <math>(\subseteq)\!</math> as <math>(\le).\!</math>  For each of the interpreters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B},\!</math> as things stand in their respective orderings <math>\mathrm{Poset}(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Poset}(\text{B}),\!</math> the semantic equivalence classes of <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> are situated as intermediate elements that are incomparable to each other.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{array}{lllll}
 +
\mathrm{Top}(\text{A})
 +
& = &
 +
\mathrm{Poset}(\text{A})
 +
& = &
 +
\{
 +
\varnothing,
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\},
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\},
 +
S
 +
\}.
 +
\\[6pt]
 +
\mathrm{Top}(\text{B})
 +
& = &
 +
\mathrm{Poset}(\text{B})
 +
& = &
 +
\{ \varnothing,
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{A} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\},
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{B} {}^{\prime\prime},
 +
{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}
 +
\},
 +
S
 +
\}.
 +
\end{array}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
In anticipation of things to come, these orderings are germinal versions of the kinds of semantic hierarchies that will be used in this project to define the ''ontologies'', ''perspectives'', or ''world views'' corresponding to individual interpreters.
 +
 +
When it comes to discussing the stability properties of dynamic systems, the sets that remain invariant under iterated applications of a process are called its ''attractors'' or ''basins of attraction''.
 +
 +
'''Note.'''  More care needed here.  Strongly and weakly connected components of digraphs?
 +
 +
The dynamic realizations of the sign relations <math>L(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>L(\text{B})\!</math> augment their semantic equivalence relations in an &ldquo;attractive&rdquo; way.  To describe this additional structure, I introduce a set of graph-theoretical concepts and notations.
 +
 +
The ''attractor'' of <math>x\!</math> in <math>Y.\!</math>
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>Y ~\text{at}~ x ~=~ \mathrm{At}[x]_Y ~=~ [x]_Y \cup \{ \text{arcs into}~ [x]_Y \}.</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
In effect, this discussion of dynamic realizations of sign relations has advanced from considering semiotic partitions as partitioning the set of points in <math>S\!</math> to considering attractors as partitioning the set of arcs in <math>S \times I = S \times S.\!</math>
 +
 +
===6.43. Reflective Extensions===
 +
 +
This section takes up the topic of reflective extensions in a more systematic fashion, starting from the sign relations <math>L(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>L(\text{B})\!</math> once again and keeping its focus within their vicinity, but exploring the space of nearby extensions in greater detail.
 +
 +
Tables&nbsp;80 and 81 show one way that the sign relations <math>L(\text{A})\!</math> and <math>L(\text{B})\!</math> can be extended in a reflective sense through the use of quotational devices, yielding the ''first order reflective extensions'', <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B}).\!</math>
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" |
 +
<math>{\text{Table 80.} ~~ \text{Reflective Extension} ~ \mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" |
 +
<math>{\text{Table 81.} ~~ \text{Reflective Extension} ~ \mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B})}\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
The common ''world'' <math>W\!</math> of the reflective extensions <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B})\!</math> is the totality of objects and signs they contain, namely, the following set of 10 elements.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>W = \{ \text{A}, \text{B}, {}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle}, {}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle}, {}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle}, {}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \}.</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
Raised angle brackets or ''supercilia'' <math>({}^{\langle} \ldots {}^{\rangle})\!</math> are here being used on a par with ordinary quotation marks <math>({}^{\backprime\backprime} \ldots {}^{\prime\prime})\!</math> to construct a new sign whose object is precisely the sign they enclose.
 +
 +
Regarded as sign relations in their own right, <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B})\!</math> are formed on the following relational domains.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{array}{ccccl}
 +
O & = & O^{(1)} \cup O^{(2)} & = &
 +
\{ \text{A}, \text{B} \}
 +
~ \cup ~
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\}
 +
\\[8pt]
 +
S & = & S^{(1)} \cup S^{(2)} & = &
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\}
 +
~ \cup ~
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\}
 +
\\[8pt]
 +
I & = & I^{(1)} \cup I^{(2)} & = &
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\}
 +
~ \cup ~
 +
\{
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle},
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle}
 +
\}
 +
\end{array}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
It may be observed that <math>S\!</math> overlaps with <math>O\!</math> in the set of first-order signs or second-order objects, <math>S^{(1)} = O^{(2)},\!</math> exemplifying the extent to which signs have become objects in the new sign relations.
 +
 +
To discuss how the denotative and connotative aspects of a sign related are affected by its reflective extension it is useful to introduce a few abbreviations.  For each sign relation <math>L\!</math> in <math>\{ L_\text{A}, L_\text{B} \}\!</math> the following operations may be defined.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{array}{lllll}
 +
\mathrm{Den}^1 (L)
 +
& = &
 +
(\mathrm{Ref}^1 (L))_{SO}
 +
& = &
 +
\mathrm{proj}_{OS} (\mathrm{Ref}^1 (L))
 +
\\[6pt]
 +
\mathrm{Con}^1 (L)
 +
& = &
 +
(\mathrm{Ref}^1 (L))_{SI}
 +
& = &
 +
\mathrm{proj}_{SI} (\mathrm{Ref}^1 (L))
 +
\end{array}\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
The dyadic components of sign relations can be given graph-theoretic representations, namely, as ''digraphs'' (directed graphs), that provide concise pictures of their structural and potential dynamic properties.  By way of terminology, a directed edge <math>(x, y)\!</math> is called an ''arc'' from point <math>x\!</math> to point <math>y,\!</math> and a self-loop <math>(x, x)\!</math> is called a ''sling'' at <math>x.\!</math>
 +
 +
The denotative components <math>\mathrm{Den}^1 (L_\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}^1 (L_\text{B})\!</math> can be viewed as digraphs on the 10 points of the world set <math>W.\!</math>  The arcs of these digraphs are given as follows.
 +
 +
<ol>
 +
<li><math>\mathrm{Den}^1 (L_\text{A})\!</math> has an arc from each point of <math>[\text{A}]_\text{A} = \{ {}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{i}{}^{\rangle} \}\!</math> to <math>\text{A}\!</math> and from each point of <math>[\text{B}]_\text{A} = \{ {}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle} \}\!</math> to <math>\text{B}.\!</math></li>
 +
 +
<li><math>\mathrm{Den}^1 (L_\text{B})\!</math> has an arc from each point of <math>[\text{A}]_\text{B} = \{ {}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{u}{}^{\rangle} \}\!</math> to <math>\text{A}\!</math> and from each point of <math>[\text{B}]_\text{B} = \{ {}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle} \}\!</math> to <math>\text{B}.\!</math></li>
 +
 +
<li>In the parts added by reflective extension <math>\mathrm{Den}^1 (L_\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}^1 (L_\text{B})\!</math> both have arcs from <math>{}^{\langle} s {}^{\rangle}\!</math> to <math>s,\!</math> for each <math>s \in S^{(1)}.\!</math></li>
 +
</ol>
 +
 +
Taken as transition digraphs, <math>\mathrm{Den}^1 (L_\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}^1 (L_\text{B})\!</math> summarize the upshots, end results, or effective steps of computation that are involved in the respective evaluations of signs in <math>S\!</math> by <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B}).\!</math>
 +
 +
The connotative components <math>\mathrm{Con}^1 (L_\text{A})~\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}^1 (L_\text{B})~\!</math> can be viewed as digraphs on the eight points of the syntactic domain <math>S.\!</math>  The arcs of these digraphs are given as follows.
 +
 +
<ol>
 +
<li><math>\mathrm{Con}^1 (L_\text{A})\!</math> inherits from <math>L_\text{A}\!</math> the structure of a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S^{(1)},\!</math> having a sling on each point of <math>S^{(1)},\!</math> arcs in both directions between <math>{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\langle} \text{i}{}^{\rangle},\!</math> and arcs in both directions between <math>{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math> and <math>{}^{\langle} \text{u}{}^{\rangle}.~\!</math>  The reflective extension <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (L_\text{A})\!</math> adds a sling on each point of <math>S^{(2)},\!</math> creating a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S.\!</math></li>
 +
 +
<li><math>\mathrm{Con}^1 (L_\text{B})~\!</math> inherits from <math>L_\text{B}\!</math> the structure of a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S^{(1)},\!</math> having a sling on each point of <math>S^{(1)},\!</math> arcs in both directions between <math>{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\langle} \text{u}{}^{\rangle},\!</math> and arcs in both directions between <math>{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math> and <math>{}^{\langle} \text{i}{}^{\rangle}.~\!</math>  The reflective extension <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (L_\text{B})\!</math> adds a sling on each point of <math>S^{(2)},\!</math> creating a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S.\!</math></li>
 +
</ol>
 +
 +
Taken as transition digraphs, <math>\mathrm{Con}^1 (L_\text{A})~\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}^1 (L_\text{B})~\!</math> highlight the associations between signs in <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (L_\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (L_\text{B}),\!</math> respectively.
 +
 +
The semiotic equivalence relation given by <math>\mathrm{Con}^1 (L_\text{A})\!</math> for interpreter <math>\text{A}\!</math> has the following semiotic equations.
 +
 +
{| cellpadding="10"
 +
| width="10%" | &nbsp;
 +
| <math>[ {}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle} ]_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[ {}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle} ]_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| width="20%" | &nbsp;
 +
| <math>[ {}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle} ]_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[ {}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle} ]_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| width="10%" | or
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math>
 +
| <math>=_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math>
 +
| width="20%" | &nbsp;
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math>
 +
| <math>=_\text{A}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
These equations induce the following semiotic partition.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>
 +
\{
 +
\{ {}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \}
 +
\}.\!
 +
</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
The semiotic equivalence relation given by <math>\mathrm{Con}^1 (L_\text{B})~\!</math> for interpreter <math>\text{B}\!</math> has the following semiotic equations.
 +
 +
{| cellpadding="10"
 +
| width="10%" | &nbsp;
 +
| <math>[ {}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle} ]_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[ {}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle} ]_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| width="20%" | &nbsp;
 +
| <math>[ {}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle} ]_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| <math>=\!</math>
 +
| <math>[ {}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle} ]_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| width="10%" | or
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math>
 +
| <math>=_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math>
 +
| width="20%" | &nbsp;
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math>
 +
| <math>=_\text{B}\!</math>
 +
| &nbsp;<math>{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}~\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
These equations induce the following semiotic partition.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>
 +
\{
 +
\{ {}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \},
 +
\{ {}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle} \}
 +
\}.\!
 +
</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
Notice that the semiotic equivalences of nouns and pronouns for each interpreter do not extend to equivalences of their second-order signs, exactly as demanded by the literal character of quotations.  Moreover, the new sign relations for interpreters <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> coincide in their reflective parts, since exactly the same triples are added to each set.
 +
 +
There are many ways to extend sign relations in an effort to increase their reflective capacities.  The implicit goal of a reflective project is to achieve ''reflective closure'', <math>S \subseteq O,\!</math> where every sign is an object.
 +
 +
Considered as reflective extensions, there is nothing unique about the constructions of <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B})\!</math> but their common pattern of development illustrates a typical approach toward reflective closure.  In a sense it epitomizes the project of ''free'', ''naive'', or ''uncritical'' reflection, since continuing this mode of production to its closure would generate an infinite sign relation, passing through infinitely many higher orders of signs, but without examining critically to what purpose the effort is directed or evaluating alternative constraints that might be imposed on the initial generators toward this end.
 +
 +
At first sight it seems as though the imposition of reflective closure has multiplied a finite sign relation into an infinite profusion of highly distracting and largely redundant signs, all by itself and all in one step.  But this explosion of orders happens only with the complicity of another requirement, that of deterministic interpretation.
 +
 +
There are two types of non-determinism, denotative and connotative, that can affect a sign relation.
 +
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>A sign relation <math>L\!</math> has a non-deterministic denotation if its dyadic component <math>{L_{SO}}\!</math> is not a function <math>L_{SO} : S \to O,\!</math> in other words, if there are signs in <math>S\!</math> with missing or multiple objects in <math>O.\!</math></li>
 +
 +
<li>A sign relation <math>L\!</math> has a non-deterministic connotation if its dyadic component <math>L_{SI}\!</math> is not a function <math>L_{SI} : S \to I,\!</math> in other words, if there are signs in <math>S\!</math> with missing or multiple interpretants in <math>I.\!</math>  As a rule, sign relations are rife with this variety of non-determinism, but it is usually felt to be under control so long as <math>L_{SI}\!</math> remains close to being an equivalence relation.</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
 +
Thus, it is really the denotative type of indeterminacy that is felt to be a problem in this context.
 +
 +
The next two pairs of reflective extensions demonstrate that there are ways of achieving reflective closure that do not generate infinite sign relations.
 +
 +
As a flexible and fairly general strategy for describing reflective extensions, it is convenient to take the following tack.  Given a syntactic domain <math>S,\!</math> there is an independent formal language <math>F = F(S) = S \langle {}^{\langle\rangle} \rangle,\!</math> called the ''free quotational extension of <math>S,\!</math>'' that can be generated from <math>S\!</math> by embedding each of its signs to any depth of quotation marks.  Within <math>F,\!</math> the quoting operation can be regarded as a syntactic generator that is inherently free of constraining relations.  In other words, for every <math>s \in S,\!</math> the sequence <math>s, {}^{\langle} s {}^{\rangle}, {}^{\langle\langle} s {}^{\rangle\rangle}, \ldots\!</math> contains nothing but pairwise distinct elements in <math>F\!</math> no matter how far it is produced.  The set <math>F(s) = s \langle {}^{\langle\rangle} \rangle \subseteq F\!</math> that collects the elements of this sequence is called the ''subset of <math>F\!</math> generated from <math>s\!</math> by quotation''.
 +
 +
Against this background, other varieties of reflective extension can be specified by means of semantic equations that are considered to be imposed on the elements of <math>F.\!</math>  Taking the reflective extensions <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B})\!</math> as the first orders of a &ldquo;free&rdquo; project toward reflective closure, variant extensions can be described by relating their entries with those of comparable members in the standard sequences <math>\mathrm{Ref}^n (\text{A})\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^n (\text{B}).\!</math>
 +
 +
A variant pair of reflective extensions, <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A} | E_1)\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B} | E_1),\!</math> is presented in Tables&nbsp;82 and 83, respectively.  These are identical to the corresponding free variants, <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})~\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B}),~\!</math> with the exception of those entries that are constrained by the following system of semantic equations.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
E_1 :
 +
&
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle} = {}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle},
 +
&
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle} = {}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle},
 +
&
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle} = {}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle},
 +
&
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle} = {}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}.
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
This has the effect of making all levels of quotation equivalent.
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 82.} ~~ \text{Reflective Extension} ~ \mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A} | E_1)\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 83.} ~~ \text{Reflective Extension} ~ \mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B} | E_1)\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
Another pair of reflective extensions, <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A} | E_2)\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B} | E_2),\!</math> is presented in Tables&nbsp;84 and 85, respectively.  These are identical to the corresponding free variants, <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A})~\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B}),~\!</math> except for the entries constrained by the following semantic equations.
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
|
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
E_2 :
 +
&
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle\rangle} = \text{A},
 +
&
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle\rangle} = \text{B},
 +
&
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle\rangle} = \text{i},
 +
&
 +
{}^{\langle\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle\rangle} = \text{u}.
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 84.} ~~ \text{Reflective Extension} ~ \mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{A} | E_2)\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center; width:80%"
 +
|+ style="height:30px" | <math>\text{Table 85.} ~~ \text{Reflective Extension} ~ \mathrm{Ref}^1 (\text{B} | E_2)\!</math>
 +
|- style="height:40px; background:#f0f0ff"
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Object}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Sign}\!</math>
 +
| width="33%" | <math>\text{Interpretant}\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|-
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{A} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{B} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{i} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\\
 +
{}^{\langle} \text{u} {}^{\rangle}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
| valign="bottom" |
 +
<math>\begin{matrix}
 +
\text{A}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{B}
 +
\\
 +
\text{A}
 +
\end{matrix}</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<br>
 +
 +
By calling attention to their intended status as ''semantic'' equations, meaning that signs are being set equal in the semantic equivalence classes they inhabit or the objects they denote, I hope to emphasize that these equations are able to say something significant about objects.
 +
 +
'''Question.''' Redo <math>F(S)\!</math> over <math>W\!</math>? Use <math>W_F = O \cup F\!</math>?
 +
 +
===6.44. Reflections on Closure===
 +
 +
The previous section dealt with a formal operation that was dubbed ''reflection'' and found that it was closely associated with the device of ''quotation'' that makes it possible to treat signs as objects by making or finding other signs that refer to them.  Clearly, an ability to take signs as objects is one component of a cognitive capacity for reflection.  But a genuine and less superficial species of reflection can do more than grasp just the isolated signs and the separate interpretants of the thinking process as objects &mdash; it can pause the fleeting procession of signs upon signs and seize their generic patterns of transition as valid objects of discussion.  This involves the conception and composition of not just ''higher order'' signs but also ''higher type'' signs, orders of signs that aspire to catch whole sign relations up in one breath.
 +
 +
&hellip;
 +
 +
===6.45. Intelligence &rArr; Critical Reflection===
 +
 +
It is just at this point that the discussion of sign relations is forced to contemplate the prospects of intelligent interpretation.  For starters, I consider an intelligent interpreter to be one that can pursue alternative interpretations of a sign or text and pick one that makes sense.  If an interpreter can find all of the most sensible interpretations and order them according to a scale of meaningfulness, but without losing the time required to act on their import, then so much the better.
 +
 +
Intelligent interpreters are a centrally important species of intelligent agents in general, since hardly any intelligent action at all can be taken without the ability to interpret signs and texts, even if read only in the sense of &ldquo;the text of nature&rdquo;.  In other words, making sense of dubious signs is a central component of all sensible action.
 +
 +
Thus, I regard the determining trait of intelligent agency to be its response to non-deterministic situations.  Agents that find themselves at junctures of unavoidable uncertainty are required by objective features of the situation to gather together the available options and select among the multitude of possibilities a few choices that further their active purposes.
 +
 +
Reflection enables an interpreter to stand back from signs and view them as objects, that is, as objective possibilities for choice to be followed up in a critical and experimental fashion rather than pursued as automatic reactions whose habitual connections cannot be questioned.
 +
 +
The mark of an intelligent interpreter that is relevant in this context is the ability to face (encounter, countenance) a non-deterministic juncture of choices in a sign relation and to respond to it as such with actions appropriate to the uncertain nature of the situation.
 +
 +
'''[Variants]'''
 +
 +
An intelligent interpreter is one that can follow up several different interpretations at once, experimenting with the denotations and connotations that are available in a non-deterministic sign relation, &hellip;
 +
 +
An intelligent interpreter is one that can face a situation of non deterministic choice and choose an interpretation (denotation or connotation) that fits the objective and syntactic context.
 +
 +
An intelligent interpreter is one that can deal with non-deterministic situations, that is, one that can follow up several lines of possible meaning for signs and read between the lines to pick out meanings that are sensitive to both the objective situation and the syntactic context of interpretation.
 +
 +
An intelligent interpreter is one that can reflect critically on the process of interpretation.  This involves a capacity for standing back from signs and interpretants and viewing them as objects, seeing their connections as objective possibilities for choice, to be compared with each other and tested against the objective and syntactic contexts, rather than taking the usual paths responding in a reflexive manner with the &hellip;
 +
 +
To do this it is necessary to interrupt the customary connections and favored associations of signs and interpretants in a sign relation and to consider a plurality of interpretations, not merely to pursue many lines of meaning in a parallel or experimental fashion, but to question seriously whether anything at all is meant by a sign.
 +
 +
&hellip; follow up alternatives in an experimental fashion, evaluate choices with a sensitivity to both the objective and syntactic contexts.
 +
 +
The mark of intelligence that is relevant to this context is the ability to comprehend a non deterministic situation of choice precisely as it is, &hellip;
 +
 +
If a species of determinism is nevertheless expected, then the extra measure of determination must be attributed to a worldly context of objects and signs extending beyond those taken into account by the sign relation in question, or else to powers of choice as yet unformalized in the character of interpreters.
 +
 +
This means that the recursions involved in the process of interpretation, besides having recourse to the inner resources of interpreters, will also recur to interfaces with objective situations and syntactic contexts.  Interpretation, to be intelligent, must have the capacity to address the full scope of objects and signs and must be given the room to operate interactively with everything up to and including the undetermined horizons of the external world.
 +
 +
===6.46. Looking Ahead===
 +
 +
On the whole throughout this project, the &ldquo;meta&rdquo; issue that has been raised here will be treated at three different levels of sophistication.
 +
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>The way I have chosen to deal with this issue in the present case is not by injecting more features of the informal discussion into the dialogue of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B},\!</math> but by trying to imagine how agents like <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> might be enabled to reflect on these aspects of their own discussion.</li>
 +
 +
<li>
 +
<p>In the series of examples that I will use to develop further aspects of the <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> dialogue, several different ways of extending the sign relations for <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> will be explored.  The most pressing task is to capture facts of the following sort.</p>
 +
 +
{| align="center" cellspacing="8" width="90%"
 +
| <math>\text{A}\!</math> knows that <math>\text{B}\!</math> uses <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to denote <math>\text{B}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to denote <math>\text{A}.\!</math>
 +
|-
 +
| <math>\text{B}\!</math> knows that <math>\text{A}\!</math> uses <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{i} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to denote <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>{}^{\backprime\backprime} \text{u} {}^{\prime\prime}\!</math> to denote <math>\text{B}.\!</math>
 +
|}
 +
 +
<p>Toward this aim, I will present a variety of constructions for motivating ''extended'', ''indexed'', or ''situated'' sign relations, all designed to meet the following requirements.</p>
 +
 +
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha">
 +
<li>To incorporate higher components of &ldquo;meta-knowledge&rdquo; about language use as it works in a community of interpreters, in reality the most basic ingredients of pragmatic competence.</li>
 +
 +
<li>To amalgamate the fragmentary sign relations of individual interpreters into &ldquo;broader-minded&rdquo; sign relations, in the use and understanding of which a plurality of agents can share.</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
 +
<p>Work at this level of concrete investigation will proceed in an incremental fashion, augmenting the discussion of A and B with features of increasing interest and relevance to inquiry.  The plan for this series of developments is as follows.</p>
 +
 +
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha" start="3">
 +
<li>I start by gathering materials and staking out intermediate goals for investigation.  This involves making a tentative foray into ways that dimensions of directed change and motivated value can be added to the sign relations initially given for <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}.\!</math></li>
 +
 +
<li>With this preparation, I return to the dialogue of <math>\text{A}\!</math> and <math>\text{B}\!</math> and pursue ways of integrating their independent selections of information into a unified system of interpretation.
 +
 +
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman">
 +
<li>First, I employ the sign relations <math>L_\text{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\text{B}\!</math> to illustrate two basic kinds of set theoretic merges, the ordinary or ''simple'' union and the indexed or ''situated'' union of extensional relations.  On review, both forms of combination are observed to fall short of what is needed to constitute the desired characteristics of a shared sign relation.</li>
 +
 +
<li>Next, I present two other ways of extending the sign relations <math>L_\text{A}\!</math> and <math>L_\text{B}\!</math> into a common system of interpretation.  These extensions succeed in capturing further aspects of what interpreters know about their shared language use.  Although motivated on different grounds, the alternative constructions that develop coincide in exactly the same abstract structure.</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</li>
 +
 +
<li>As this project begins to take on sign relations that are complex enough to convey the impression of genuine inquiry processes, a fuller explication of this issue will become mandatory.  Eventually, this will demand a concept of ''higher-order sign relations'', whose objects, signs, and interpretants can all be complete sign relations in their own rights.</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
 +
In principle, the successive grades of complexity enumerated above could be ascended in a straightforward way, if only the steps did not go straight up the cliffs of abstraction.  As always, the kinds of intentional objects that are the toughest to face are those whose realization is so distant that even the gear needed to approach their construction is not yet in existence.
 +
 +
===6.50. Revisiting the Source===
 +
 +
'''&hellip;'''
 +
 +
----
 +
<div align="center">
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems|Contents]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 1|Part 1]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 2|Part 2]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 3|Part 3]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 4|Part 4]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 5|Part 5]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 6|Part 6]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 7|Part 7]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Part 8|Part 8]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Appendices|Appendices]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : References|References]]
 +
&bull; [[Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Inquiry Driven Systems : Document History|Document History]]
 +
&bull;
 +
</div>
 +
----
 +
 +
[[Category:Artificial Intelligence]]
 +
[[Category:Critical Thinking]]
 +
[[Category:Cybernetics]]
 +
[[Category:Education]]
 +
[[Category:Hermeneutics]]
 +
[[Category:Information Systems]]
 +
[[Category:Inquiry]]
 +
[[Category:Intelligence Amplification]]
 +
[[Category:Learning Organizations]]
 +
[[Category:Knowledge Representation]]
 +
[[Category:Logic]]
 +
[[Category:Philosophy]]
 +
[[Category:Pragmatics]]
 +
[[Category:Semantics]]
 +
[[Category:Semiotics]]
 +
[[Category:Systems Science]]
Jon Awbrey
12,080

edits

Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/Special:MobileDiff/464037...464042"

Navigation menu