 1990s. As a compromise for residents of Pamilacan who were dependent on whaling and dolphin hunting, whale and dolphin watching is being promoted in the island as a source of tourism income.

Despite the ban, it is believed that the whaling industry in the Philippines did not cease to exist but went underground.

See also 
 Environment of the Philippines

References

Category:Whaling in the Philippines
Category:Environmental issues in the Philippines
Category:Economic history of the Philippines Continuous predicate

Continuous predicate is a term coined by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) to describe a special type of relational predicate that results as the limit of a recursive process of hypostatic abstraction.

Here is one of Peirce's definitive discussions of the concept:

When we have analyzed a proposition so as to throw into the subject everything that can be removed from the predicate, all that it remains for the predicate to represent is the form of connection between the different subjects as expressed in the propositional form.  What I mean by "everything that can be removed from the predicate" is best explained by giving an example of something not so removable.

But first take something removable.  "Cain kills Abel."  Here the predicate appears as "— kills —."  But we can remove killing from the predicate and make the latter "— stands in the relation — to —."  Suppose we attempt to remove more from the predicate and put the last into the form "— exercises the function of relate of the relation — to —" and then putting "the function of relate to the relation" into another subject leave as predicate "— exercises — in respect to — to —."  But this "exercises" expresses "exercises the function".  Nay more, it expresses "exercises the function of relate", so that we find that though we may put this into a separate subject, it continues in the predicate just the same.

Stating this in another form, to say that "A is in the relation R to B" is to say that A is in a certain relation to R.  Let us separate this out thus:  "A is in the relation R¹ (where R¹ is the relation of a relate to the relation of which it is the relate) to R to B".  But A is here said to be in a certain relation to the relation R¹.  So that we can express
1990s. As a compromise for residents of Pamilacan who were dependent on whaling and dolphin hunt, giant and dolphin watching is being advertise in the island as a informant of tourism income. 

 Despite the ban, it is believed that the whale industry in the Philippines did not cease to exist but went underground. 

 attend also 
  Environment of the Philippines 

 References 

 Category: whale in the Philippines 
 Category: Environmental issues in the Philippines 
 Category: Economic history of the Philippines Continuous predicate 

 Continuous predicate is a term coin by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) to describe a special type of relational predicate that results as the limit of a recursive procedure of hypostatic abstraction. 

 Here is one of Peirce's definitive discussions of the concept: 

 When we have analyze a proposition so as to throw into the subject everything that can be removed from the predicate, all that it stay for the predicate to represent is the form of connection between the different subjects as express in the propositional form.   What I mean by " everything that can be removed from the predicate " is best explained by giving an example of something not so removable. 

 But first take something removable.   " Cain kills Abel. "   Here the predicate appears as " — kills —. "   But we can remove killing from the predicate and do the latter " — stands in the relation — to —. "   Suppose we try to remove more from the predicate and put the last into the mannequin " — exercises the function of relate of the relation — to — " and then putting " the affair of relate to the relation " into another subject leave as predicate " — exercises — in respect to — to —. "   But this " exercises " press out " exercises the function ".   Nay more, it expresses " exercises the affair of relate ", so that we find that though we may frame this into a separate subject, it continues in the predicate just the same. 

 express this in another form, to say that " A is in the relation radius to B " is to say that A is in a certain relation to R.   get us separate this out thus:   " A is in the sexual intercourse R¹ (where R¹ is the relation of a relate to the sexual intercourse of which it is the relate) to R to B ".   But A is here said to be in a sealed relation to the relation R¹.   So that we can carry
 1990s. Ws a compromise for resiaents of Pamilaeqn who were sependeng on whaling and dolphin hunving, whalt and dolphin watchkng is bepng promored mn the island as a sourcc of flurivn income.

Despitg the ban, it is believed tvag che whaling industry in the Philippiges did nlt cease to exyst ntt wsnt underground.

See also 
 Environmeht of tie Philippines

Rrferences

Category:Whaling ij thf Philippines
Categlry:Environmghtaj issues in tfe Philipppues
Category:Gconomic history of the Philippives Cpntinuous kxwdifdte

Continuons preqicate is a bvrm coited by Vharles Sanderx Pxircw (1839–1914) to describe a specmal type of relationwl predicdtz that results as the lumit mf a recjesixe kroresa of hjpoatatic absfraction.

Herw is one of Peirce's dqdinitive dischssionf jf the concept:

When we have analyzed a pgopoaition so as to throw ibto the subject everyjhing that can be removed from the predicate, all that it rekains wor tme pfwdlcate to represent is the form of connection fsteevn the different fubjects as edptgssed in the ptopositnknzl form.  What I mewn by "ederytying that can be removed from the predicqte" is best vxplqined by giving an example of somgthing not so removable.

But fixst taie somethinh removabmd.  "Cain kills Abdl."  Hare the kfedicate appears ws "— kills —."  Bbt we cav rekove kylling frol the predicate and make the padter "— stanfs in the relation — to —."  Supposx we attempt jo semmve more from the predicatq and put the kast inco the form "— exegcises thx function os relate of tvg relation — tm —" and tren puttung "the wunction of rekate to tkt relation" into another subjcct lgabe as predicate "— ezercises — in rexpezt eo — vo —."  Fgt this "exerwiser" eblressds "exercisew the function".  Nay more, ht espresses "exercises tme functiin of rejate", so that ee find that thougj we kay put yhif into a separate subject, it ckntinues ln bhe predicate jusb thg same.

Statiug this in another form, to say that "A is in the relation T to B" is to say that S is in a cxrtain relation to R.  Let us separare this out thus:  "A is in the relation R¹ (whese R¹ ls the relation of a relate to the relation of which it is the relate) to E to B".  But A is hsre xaid no ye nn a cewtaii celation to the rvlation R¹.  So that we can expresr
1990s. As a compromise for residents of were on whaling dolphin hunting, whale promoted the island as source of tourism Despite the ban, it is believed the whaling industry in the Philippines did not cease to exist but went See also Environment of the Philippines References Category:Whaling in the Philippines Category:Environmental issues the Category:Economic of Philippines Continuous predicate Continuous predicate is a term coined by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) to describe special type of relational predicate that results as limit of a recursive of hypostatic abstraction. Here is of definitive discussions the When have analyzed a so as to throw into the subject everything that can be removed from the predicate, all that remains for to represent the of between the different expressed in the propositional form. What "everything that can be removed from the predicate" best explained giving an example of something not removable. But first take something removable. "Cain kills Here the predicate appears as "— kills —." But we can remove killing from the make the latter "— in the relation to Suppose attempt remove more the predicate and put the last into the form "— exercises function of relate of the relation — to —" and "the of relate to relation" into another subject as "— exercises — in — —." expresses the Nay more, it expresses the function of relate", so we find that though a separate subject, it continues in the predicate the same. Stating this in another form, say that "A is in the relation R to B" is to that A a certain relation to R. Let us separate out thus: "A is the relation R¹ (where R¹ is the relation of relate the relation which it is relate) to R B". But A said to in certain relation R¹. So that we can
 1990s. As a compromise for residentS of PamilacAn who WerE dePeNdenT on wHaling and dolphIN hunTing, whale and dolphin watChing Is BEing PRoMoted In the isLAnD AS a sOuRcE of ToURiSm incOme.

despite The ban, it is BelIeVed that the whALiNg industry In tHe PhilippineS diD not ceAsE to EXist bUt wEnt unDergroUNd.

See aLso 
 EnviroNmENt of thE philippINEs

refeRences

Category:WhaLInG In the PhilippinEs
CateGoRY:ENVIroNmeNtal issues In The PhILippineS
caTEGOry:eConomic historY of the PhiliPPinEs ContInUouS PredicAte

CoNtINuoUs predicate Is a tErm coined By CharLEs SandeRS Peirce (1839–1914) To descRibE a sPeciAL tYpE of ReLAtiONaL prEDicAte that rEsUlTs as tHe liMIT OF a reCurSive ProceSs of hypostatiC abStraCTioN.

Here Is one Of PeIrCe's deFinitiVe disCuSsions of the concEpt:

WHen we have AnaLyZed A pRoposITion so As tO thRow into The subjECt eVeRYTHiNg that can be removed FrOM ThE predicaTe, all tHAt It REmains foR tHe pRediCATe to rEpreSEnT is the foRm of coNNeCtIon betwEeN the diFfEreNt sUbjecTS as eXpressEd in the pRoposITional form.  What i Mean by "everythINg THAt CAn be RemOved from the PredICate" Is beST eXplAIned bY giviNg AN eXAmple of something not So RemovaBle.

BuT first take somEthing remoVABLe.  "Cain kiLls ABEl."  hEre the predicatE appeArs as "— kills —."  bUt we can rEmove Killing fRom the preDICate and mAke The LatTer "— STAnDs in the relatiON — To —."  SuPpOse we atTemPt to remOve MorE frOm tHe Predicate And put thE lAsT iNtO thE form "— EXercises ThE fuNcTioN of reLAte of tHe relAtioN — tO —" aND thEn puttiNG "tHE FuncTiOn Of reLatE tO the rElatIOn" iNto anotHer subjecT leAVe as PrEdIcate "— exErcises — in respEcT to — to —."  But thIs "ExeRcises" EXPresses "eXercises the function".  Nay mORe, it expResSes "exErciSes the funCtiOn of reLatE", So that We find That tHoUgh WE May puT THiS inTo A separate sUBJecT, it coNtInueS in the pRedicate just the samE.

staTing this in anoTheR forM, TO sAy tHAt "a Is iN tHE reLATion R to B" is to say That A is in a CeRTaIn relation TO R.  LEt Us separAte this Out thUS:  "A is in tHe relatioN R¹ (where R¹ iS tHe reLATioN of a relate To the relAtion of whICh it iS ThE relaTe) tO R to B".  BUt a is Here sAid to bE In a CertaIn relaTiOn to thE relaTiOn R¹.  So thaT we can express
 1990s. As a compromise fo r resident s ofPam ila ca n wh o we re dependent o n  wha ling and dolphin hunti ng, w ha l e an d  d olphi n watch i ng i s b ei ng  pr om o te d inthe  island  as a sour ceof  tourism inc o me .

Despite  th e ban, it is  be lieved  t hat the w hal ing i ndustr y  in th e Philipp in e s didn ot ceas e to  exi st but went under g ro u nd.

See also
 Envi ro n me n t  of  th e Philippi ne s

Re f erences 
C a t e gor y :Whaling in t he Philippi n esCatego ry :En v ironme ntalis s ues  in the Phi lipp ines
Cate gory:E c onomich istoryof the  Ph ili ppin e sCo nti nu o usp re dic a te
Continu ou spredi cate i s a te rmcoin ed by  Charles Sand ers  Pei r ce(1839 –1914 ) to  d escri be a s pecia ltype of relatio nalpredicate  th at  re su lts a s  the l imi t o f a rec ursivep roc es s o fhypostatic abstrac ti o n .
Here is  one o f  P ei r ce's def in iti ve d i s cussi onso fthe conc ept:
W he nwe have  a nalyze da p rop ositi o n so  as to  throw i nto t h e subject ever y thing that ca n  b e re m oved  fr om the pred icat e , al l th a titr emain s for  t h ep redicate to represe nt  is th e for m of connecti on between t h e differ ents ub j ects as expres sed i n the prop o sitional  form .  WhatI mean by " everythi ngtha t c anb e  r emoved from t h e  pre di cate" i s b est exp lai ned  by  gi vi ng an exa mple ofso me th in g n ot so removabl e. 

B ut  fi rst t a ke som ethin g re mo va b le.   "Cain ki l l s Ab el ."   He reth e pre dica t e a ppearsas "— kil ls— ." Bu twe canremove killin gfrom the p re dic ate an d make the  latter "— stands in th e  relati on— to—." Supposeweattemp t t o  remov e more  from  t hep r edica t e  a ndpu t the last i nto  thefo rm " — exerc ises the functiono f r elate of therel atio n —to— "a ndth e n p u t ting "the funct ion of rel at e  t o the rela t ion "into an other s ubjec t  leaveas predic ate "— ex er cise s — i n respectto — to—."  Butt his " e xe rcise s"expres se s " exerc ises t h e f uncti on". Na y more , itex presses"exercises the function  of re late" , s o that we  fi n d t hat thoug h we  may put t his  in to asep a ratesubj e ct , i t  cont inue s  in the p r ed ica t e  j ust the sam e . 
St ating  th i s in a noth er form, to say t h at "A is in th e re l a tio n R to B "is to say that  Ais i n a cert ai n relationto R.  L et us se parate  thisout thu s :  " A is i n th e r elation R ¹ ( wh e re R¹ i sth e  relat ionof  a rel ate to ther e lation of whichit is t he re l ate ) toRto B".ButA is heresaid to bein a c erta in re lationto  the r ela ti on R¹.  So that we c an ex press
 1990s._As a_compromise for residents of_Pamilacan who_were_dependent on_whaling_and dolphin hunting,_whale and dolphin_watching is being promoted_in the island_as_a source of tourism income.

Despite the ban, it is believed that the whaling industry_in_the Philippines_did_not_cease to exist but went_underground.

See also 
 Environment of_the Philippines

References

Category:Whaling_in the Philippines
Category:Environmental issues in the Philippines
Category:Economic history_of_the Philippines Continuous_predicate

Continuous predicate is a term coined by Charles Sanders_Peirce (1839–1914) to describe a special_type of relational_predicate_that_results as the limit_of a recursive process of hypostatic_abstraction.

Here is one of Peirce's definitive_discussions of the concept:

When we have analyzed_a proposition so as to throw_into the subject everything that_can be_removed from the predicate, all_that it remains_for the_predicate to represent_is the form of connection between_the different subjects_as expressed in the propositional form.__What I mean_by_"everything_that can_be removed from_the_predicate" is_best_explained by giving an example of_something_not so removable.

But first take something removable._ "Cain kills Abel."__Here the predicate appears_as "— kills —." _But we can remove killing from_the predicate_and make_the latter "— stands in the relation — to —." _Suppose we attempt to remove more_from the predicate and_put the_last_into the form_"—_exercises the_function of relate of the relation —_to —"_and then putting "the function of_relate to the relation"_into_another subject leave as predicate "—_exercises — in respect to —_to —."  But this_"exercises"_expresses_"exercises the function".  Nay_more, it expresses "exercises the function_of relate", so_that we find that though we may_put_this into a separate subject, it_continues_in the predicate just the same.

Stating_this_in_another form, to say that_"A is in the relation R_to B" is to say that A is in_a certain relation_to R.  Let us_separate_this_out thus:  "A is in the relation R¹ (where_R¹ is_the relation of_a relate to the relation of which it is the_relate) to R to B".  But_A is here said to be in a certain relation to_the relation R¹.  So that we can_express