[CG] Re: Logical Graphs • Discussion

Logical Graphs • Discussion 10 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/09/18/logical-graphs-discussion-10/ Re: Logical Graphs • Formal Development • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/09/01/logical-graphs-formal-development… Re: Laws of Form • Armahedi Mahzar • https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/topic/logical_graphs_formal/108456215 • https://groups.io/g/lawsofform/message/3766 AM: ❝GSB took J1: (a(a)) = as the first algebraic primitive and the second one is transposition so he only need only 2 primitives for the primary algebra. ❝Reflexion ((a))=a is proven without using Cancellation (( ))= . ❝In fact, he can prove cancellation from C1 reflexion. ❝Condensation ( )( ) = ( ) can be derived from C4 iteration. ❝So, his algebra is simpler from your Cactus Calculus.❞ Dear Arma, I had a feeling we've discussed this before, and probably in a lot more detail than I have time for at the moment (as I won't be online much for the next couple of weeks) so I hunted up the previous discussion — turns out it was on the old Yahoo Group — there's a copy of that below for whatever memory‑jogging it may be worth. To my way of thinking, what you say about reducing the primary arithmetic to the primary algebra shows a lack of appreciation for the fundamental nature of that distinction. Indeed, the recognition and clarification of that distinction is one of the most important upgrades Spencer Brown added to Peirce's initial systems of logical graphs. As far as the other score goes, the advantages of handling label changes and structure changes separately in one's syntactic operations is just one of those things I learned in the hard knocks way of programming theorem provers for logical graphs, and I all I can do is keep recommending it on that account. Regards, Jon