SUO: Re: More Sand In The Gyres
Jon,
My paper "Laws, Facts, and Contexts" addresses a technical
issue in defining the semantics of modal logic. I use
those three words in a very narrow technical sense:
1. A context is a box for collecting propositions.
2. A fact is a proposition that is assumed to be true
within the confines of some context.
3. A law is a fact that some authority, such as God or
your parents, has legislated as more privileged than
other facts that are stored in the same box.
In the bibliography of that paper, I cite 31 different
people, including Peirce and Tarski. I make no claims
that any of them use those words in the same way as
each other or in the same way as I do in that paper.
JA> I think that it is crucial to distinguish Peirce's way of
> treating context from Tarski's way of attempting to do it.
Neither Peirce nor Tarski used the word "context" in the works
that I cited. They did use certain technical devices, which I
adopted and used in my paper. My combination of devices is not
the same as theirs.
JA> But Peirce's method is very distinct from Tarski's, for all of
> the reasons that I have noted above, and probably a few more
> that I forget right now.
Indeed. But that is not the topic of my paper. For anyone who
may still have an interest in looking at it, following is the URL:
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/laws.htm
John Sowa