Cf: Higher Order Sign Relations : 3
Re: Higher Order Sign Relations
Re: Ontolog Forum ( https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ontolog-forum/B9HpfImt3aQ/overview
::: Joseph Simpson ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ontolog-forum/B9HpfImt3aQ/R7shee_3BAAJ
Travel delayed ... so I have a little time ...
The subject matters of relations, types, and functions enjoy a form of recursive involvement with one another which
makes it difficult to know where to get on and where to get off the circle of explanation. As I currently understand
their relationship, it can be approached in the following order:
* Relations have types.
* Types are functions.
* Functions are relations.
In this setting, a "type" is a function from the "places" of a relation, that is, from the index set of its
"components", to a collection of sets known as the "domains" of the relation.
My 3-basket mantra recited above harks back to the mid 1980s when I took a course on Applications of Lambda Calculus
from John Gray at Illinois. It was all about categories, combinators, and computation, focusing especially on cartesian
closed categories, one of the hot topics of the day. We had a packet of readings from the classic sources and used J.
Lambek and P.J. Scott's Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic as our main text. I followed that up with a
supervised independent study where I explored various themes of my own.
The directions I pursued, and continue to continue, all have to do with mutating category theory just far enough to
encompass Peirce's 3-eyed vision in a more natural fashion.
I'll make that more explicit when I next get a chance.