It seems we're conflating relations with operators. The sense of "argument" is that of operand, which can be just an input to an operator or just an output, or both an input and an output. The operand is a possibly dynamic thing operated on by the operator. I don't think you want that sense. So, for that reason, you may not want to use "argument".
Naively, relations are simpler statements of how extant/static things relate. And if you really just want relations, then you're talking about a triad, not a dyad. So, there would be 1 relation term and 3 "parameter" (or "variable") terms. But operators _also_ define context, which is relevant to your "O". So, perhaps S and I are merely related in the context set by the O operator? So, the reason I waited till lunch time to answer is because I think the language you choose to say this depends quite a bit on what it is you're trying to say. On 11/08/2016 11:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
In the language I proposed, this expression would be rendered as [Relation1([Relation2][Argument1][Relation3][Argument2]) or something like that. In other words, I see you as using “argument” exactly as I meant it. While still confused, tho, I like your solution to my problem. However my FRIAM colleagues my react to my usage, Philosophers are going to HATE it.
dave> "Arguments in this sense have nothing to do with the structure of the expression itself. dave> dave> It might sound redundant, but I think you should simply use 'Term', e.g. [Term1][relation][Term2][Relation2]Term3] and replace the word 'term' in the prose with 'part' or 'element', i.e. segment or piece. [...] nick> [Argument1][relation1][Argument2][Relation2]Argument3]; or, for short nick> nick> A1R1A2R2A3 -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
