You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Peiyuan Zhu (Jan 03 2024 at 05:29):how to understand this from Peirce:
“But from that proposition that one event, Z, is subsequent to another event, J, I can at once deduce by necessary reasoning a universal proposition. Namely, the definition of the relation of apparent subsequence is well known, or sufficiently so for our purpose. Z will appear to be subsequent to Y if and only if Z appears to stand in a peculiar relation, R, to Y such that nothing can stand in the relation R to itself, and if, furthermore, whatever event, X, there may be to which Y stands in the relation R, to that same X, Z also stands in the relation R. This being implied in the meaning of subsequence, concerning which there is no room for doubt, it easily follows that whatever is subsequent to C is subsequent to anything, A, to which C is subsequent—which is a universal proposition.”
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Jan 03 2024 at 09:39):It sounds like he's arguing very verbosely that the relation "X appears to be subsequent to Y" should be antisymmetric and transitive. This is intuitively the case, but his argument doesn't hold any more substance than it being 'obvious'.