This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Cf.Natural Language and the Computer, ed.P. L. Garvin, New York 1963, p. 9: “... signs or symbols, unless they are iconic in Charles Perice's terms, are arrived at by convention and hence are arbitrary in the sense that their physical shape is not necessarily related to their meaning”.
ProfessorZdzisław Pawlak has suggested an interesting broadening of the interpretation suggested in this paper: the system here presented holds ifH is interpreted as the set of finite automata,m as the set of signals, andB as the set of the states of such automata. This interpretation also waives aside all the philosophical considerations that might be pointed to in the case of the original interpretation. The very possibility of this broadened interpretation is, in the author's opinion, a strong argument in favour of the system adopted in this paper.
In Part I the relation of equisignificance was adopted as a primitive term and called the relation of isosemy. The term used here follows the terminology ofE. C. Luschei inThe Logical Systems of Leśniewski, Amsterdam 1962.
In Part I the concepts of expression and fragment were treated as primitive.
D. Hilbert andW. Ackermann,Grundzüge der theoretischen. Logik, Berlin 1928, pp. 44–45.
The connection between the two approaches will be established at another opportunity.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Allatum est die 24 Februarii 1966
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wojtasiewicz, O. Towards a general theory of sign systems. II. Stud Logica 21, 81–88 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02123424
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02123424