#ZerothLawOfSemiotics • Discussion 4.2
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/12/25/zeroth-law-of-semiotics-discussion-4/

As Esteban observes, our place-value systems of representation for integers and other numbers are relative to the basis chosen to generate the sequence of place values. The basis is, in effect, the key to the code. We may take this as a special case of a more general fact, one I summed up as follows.

Reference is relative to a frame of reference. In pragmatic semiotics, frames of reference are called #SignRelations”.

#Logic

#ZerothLawOfSemiotics • Discussion 4.1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/12/25/zeroth-law-of-semiotics-discussion-4/

<ET:>
Well the truth value can me true or false or something else — akin to \(5+5=12\) being a true statement, if one knows what base it involves, else it may be false. The same for \(4+4=10\) being a true statement, if one knows what base it involves.
</ET>

Yes, reference is relative to a frame of reference. In pragmatic #Semiotics, frames of reference are called #SignRelations.

#Logic #Peirce #Semeiotics #AllLiarNoParadox

2/2

@JamesGleick

I share many of my post series across several platforms so I refer to the anchor post by a Da Capo link like this:

• https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/109325358455215775

I use a hashtag to reference something close to the most recent post, for example:

#ZerothLawOfSemiotics

#ZerothLawOfSemiotics • Discussion 4
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/12/25/zeroth-law-of-semiotics-discussion-4/

Re: FB | Pattern Languages for Systemic Transformation
• https://www.facebook.com/groups/125513674232534/posts/5698095106974335
Re: Esteban Trev
• https://www.facebook.com/groups/125513674232534/posts/5698095106974335?comment_id=5701465213303991

<QUOTE JA:>
A statement \(S_0\) asserts that a statement \(S_1\) is a statement that \(S_1\) is false.

The statement \(S_0\) violates an #Axiom of #Logic, so it doesn’t really matter whether the
ostensible statement \(S_1,\) the so-called “#Liar”, really is a statement or has a #TruthValue.

#AllLiarNoParadox

#ZerothLawOfSemiotics • Discussion 3.1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/12/14/zeroth-law-of-semiotics-discussion-3/

#Russell had no #PragmaticSemiotics so his perspective on signs and #SignRelations was mired in #Syntacticism, a species of #Nominalism. From #Peirce's POV we are able to ask, and we have to ask, what could it possibly mean for a sign to refer to itself? Indeed, do signs refer to themselves at all, or is it only that #Interpreters refer signs to their objects? The whole problem looks very different once we take that point of view.

#ZerothLawOfSemiotics • Discussion 3
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2022/12/14/zeroth-law-of-semiotics-discussion-3/

1 | My remarks on Facebook regarding the Zeroth Law Of Semiotics and its application to the Liar Paradox prompted Kent Olson to observe, “The liar paradox is a self-referential paradox, yes? I think Russell answered these”. I added the following comment.

#Logic #Semeiotics #Semiotics #SignRelations
#Peirce #Epimenides #LiarParadox #AllLiarNoParadox

Zeroth Law Of Semiotics

Meaning is a privilege not a right.
Not all pictures depict.
Not all signs denote.

Never confuse a property of a sign,
just for instance, existence,
with a sign of a property,
for instance, existence.

Taking a property of a sign
for a sign of a property
is the zeroth sign of
nominal thinking
and the first
mistake.

Also Sprach 0*
9 October 2002

See —

#ZerothLawOfSemiotics

• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/07/30/zeroth-law-of-semiotics/

#Semiotics #SignRelations
#LiarParadox #Epimenides