If you are talking about “S. is a sign to I. of O.” I would call that a
ternary relation: isASignOfTo (S, O, I). (Notice I switched the O and the
I.) So the triple ("hello", greeting, Nick) is a triple in the isASignOfTo
relation. I don't know that there are standard terms for the individual
elements. They might be called field values, tuple elements, components, or
something similar. I don't like "argument" because I tend to use
"argument" when
calling a function. But we are talking about relations, not functions. If
the fields have names (like sign, meaning, person), you might call the
elements use "the sign", "the meaning", and "the person." More generally,
if you like to think in terms of roles, you might call the elements in the
tuples, role-fillers, where sign, meaning, and person are roles.
-- Russ
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:53 AM glen ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
============================================================
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
