Changes

Let's see if this checks out.

Let's see if this checks out.

Let ''n'' be the number of things in general, in Peirce's lingo, ''n'' = [1].  On the assumption that m and b are associated with independent events, we get [''m'',''b''] = P(''m'' & ''b'')''n'' = P(''m'')P(''b'')''n'' = P(''m'')[''b''] = [''m'',][''b''], so we have to interpret [''m'',] = "the average number of men per things in general" as P(''m'') = the probability of a thing in general being a man.  Seems okay.

Let <math>N\!</math> be the number of things in general, in Peirce's lingo, <math>N = [\mathbf{1}].</math> On the assumption that <math>\mathrm{m}\!</math> and <math>\mathrm{b}\!</math> are associated with independent events, we get <math>[\mathrm{m,}\mathrm{b}] = \operatorname{P}(\mathrm{m}\mathrm{b}) \cdot N = \operatorname{P}(\mathrm{m})\operatorname{P}(\mathrm{b}) \cdot N = \operatorname{P}(\mathrm{m})[\mathrm{b}] = [\mathrm{m,}][\mathrm{b}],</math> so we have to interpret <math>[\mathrm{m,}]\!</math> = "the average number of men per things in general" as P(''m'') = the probability of a thing in general being a man.  Seems okay.

===Commentary Note 11.22===

===Commentary Note 11.22===