ONT Re: Extension x Comprehension = Information
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
JD = Jean-Luc Delatre
After a series of off-list exchanges -- which has now expanded my file
of unanswered questions to 60 kb! -- it occurs to me that maybe JD had
another thing in mind when he asked this question or when he made this
suggestion:
JD: Then why not just have two tables instead of
the 'join' of them which is much more bulky.
Object-Sign Relation L'(A)
o---------------o---------------o
| Object | Sign |
o---------------o---------------o
| A | "A" |
o---------------o---------------o
| B | "B" |
o---------------o---------------o
Sign-Interp Relation L"(A)
o---------------o---------------o
| Sign | Interpretant |
o---------------o---------------o
| "A" | "A" |
| "A" | "i" |
o---------------o---------------o
| "B" | "B" |
| "B" | "u" |
o---------------o---------------o
I apologize for not thinking of this first -- my only excuse
would have to be that I have recently been participating in
a "community of interpretation" (COI) where the use of words
like "join" is loose to the point of having lost almost all
of their former meaning to me. A poor excuse is better than
none, as someone used to say. Anyway, maybe JD is suggesting
that there is a relational operation that is capable of taking
us from a pair of 2-adic relations J c !O!x!S! and K c !S!x!I!
to a particular 3-adic relation L c !O!x!S!x!I!, and that maybe
we can obtain our original sign relations L(A) and L(B) in some
such way.
I will stop here and see if this guess is in the ballpark, or not.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤