Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Folks,
This is interesting stuff but appears not to have any axioms defining
these concepts.
Adam
At 12:55 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>"West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK" wrote:
> >
> > Dear Adam,
> >
> > OK so it is fine to add (back) Firstness Secondness and
> > Thirdness, but at least some initial axioms are necessary
> > before this is done. Right?
> >
> > Can you oblige John?
>
>Yes, but...
>
>It is much more than a few axioms, it's an entire infrastructure.
>At the moment, I am desperately trying to finish a paper that I had
>hoped to finish several months ago. The first 3 sections are fairly
>stable, but the remaining 4 sections are still undergoing major
>revisions and upheavals. If you promise not to read beyond
>Section 3 (or at least don't consider the later sections to be a
>definitive statement of what I'm trying to say), you can look at
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.htm
>
>John Sowa
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571