Amirouche Moktefi

L’usage des diagrammes en logique est ancien. Aux débuts de la logique mathématique, ils servent notamment à résoudre le problème de l’élimination. Cela consiste à extraire la conclusion qui découle d’un ensemble de prémisses en éliminant les termes et les propositions indésirables ou superflus. À cette fin, les logiciens inventent une multitude de notations. Il convient dès lors de s’interroger sur la place des méthodes diagrammatiques dans ce programme de recherche ainsi que leurs interactions avec les autres méthodes de résolution, symboliques et mécaniques. Les diagrammes éliminent-ils vraiment?

In this paper we argue that there were several currents, ideas and problems in 19th-century logic that motivated John Venn to develop his famous logic diagrams. To this end, we first examine the problem of uncertainty or over-specification in syllogistic that became obvious in Euler diagrams. In the 19th century, numerous logicians tried to solve this problem. The most famous was the attempt to introduce dashed circles into Euler diagrams. The solution that John Venn developed for this problem, however, came from a completely different area of logic: instead of orienting to syllogistic like Euler diagrams, Venn applied Boolean algebra to improve visual reasoning. Venn’s contribution to solving the problem of elimination also played an important role. The result of this development is still known today as the ‘Venn Diagram’.

Lewis Carroll published a system of logic in the symbolic tradition that developed in his time. Carroll’s readers may be puzzled by his system. On the one hand, it introduced innovations, such as his logic notation, his diagrams and his method of trees, that secure Carroll’s place on the path that shaped modern logic. On the other hand, Carroll maintained the existential import of universal affirmative Propositions, a feature that is rather characteristic of traditional logic. The object of this paper is to untangle this dilemma by exploring Carroll’s guidelines in the design of his logic, and in particular his theory of existential import. It will be argued that Carroll’s view reflected his belief in the social utility of symbolic logic.

Extension and intension are two ways of indicating the fundamental meaning of a concept. The extent of a concept, C, is the set of objects which correspond to C whereas the intent of C is the collection of attributes that characterise it. Thus, intension denotes the set of objects corresponding to C without naming them individually. Mathematicians switch comfortably between these perspectives but the majority of logical diagrams deal exclusively in extension. Euler diagrams indicate sets using curves to depict their extent in a way that intuitively matches the relations between the sets. What happens when we use spatial diagrams to depict intension? What can we infer about the intension of a concept given its extension, and vice versa? We present the first steps towards addressing these questions by defining extensional and intensional Euler diagrams and translations between the two perspectives. We show that translation in either direction leads to a loss of information, yet preserves important semantic properties. To conclude, we explain how we expect further exploration of the relationship between the two perspectives could shed light on connections between diagrams, extension, intension, and well-matchedness.

Logic, the discipline that explores valid reasoning, does not need to be limited to a specific form of representation but should include any form as long as it allows us to draw sound conclusions from given information. The use of diagrams has a long but unequal history in logic: The golden age of diagrammatic logic of the 19th century thanks to Euler and Venn diagrams was followed by the early 20th century's symbolization of modern logic by Frege and Russell. Recently, we have been witnessing a revival of interest in diagrams from various disciplines - mathematics, logic, philosophy, cognitive science, and computer science. This book aims to provide a space for this newly debated topic - the logical status of diagrams - in order to advance the goal of universal logic by exploring common and/or unique features of visual reasoning.

It is of common use in modern Venn diagrams to mark a compartment with a cross to express its non-emptiness. Modern scholars seem to derive this convention from Charles S. Peirce, with the assumption that it was unknown to John Venn. This paper demonstrates that Venn actually introduced several methods to represent existentials but felt uneasy with them. The resistance to formalize existentials was not limited to diagrammatic systems, as George Boole and his followers also failed to provide a satisfactory symbolic representation for them. This difficulty points out issues that are inherent to the very nature of existentials. This paper assesses the various methods designed for the representation of existential statements with Venn diagrams. First, Venn’s own attempts are discussed and compared with other solutions proposed by his contemporaries and successors, notably Lewis Carroll and Peirce. Since disjunctives hold an important role in an effective representation of existentials, their representation is also discussed. Finally, recent methods for the diagrammatic representation of existing individuals, rather than mere existence, are surveyed.

It is well known that Charles L. Dodgson (alias Lewis Carroll, 1832–1898) worked on a logic treatise that would popularise the subject of symbolic logic. The first part appeared in 1896 but the next parts never appeared. It has been claimed that Carroll worked in isolation and did not read the main works of his time. The object of this paper is to inquire what Carroll’s private library teaches us on his readings. The content of this library is known thanks to the sale catalogues that were issued when the library was auctioned at Carroll’s death. This paper provides an overview of the logic books owned by Carroll. Then, it investigates the extent to which Carroll was acquainted with the main logic works of his time. Finally, the paper considers some methodological issues related to the use of ‘library arguments’ in intellectual history.

It is little known that Schopenhauer (1788–1860) made thorough use of Euler diagrams in his works. One specific diagram depicts a high number of concepts in relation to Good and Evil. It is, hence, uncharacteristic as logicians of that time seldom used diagrams for more than three terms (the number demanded by syllogisms). The objective of this paper is to make sense of this diagram by explaining its function and inquiring whether it could be viewed as an early serious attempt to construct complex diagrams.

Dans une lettre adressée à Bertrand Russell, le 17 mai 1905, Hugh MacColl raconte avoir abandonné l’étude de la logique après 1884, pendant près de treize ans, et explique que ce fut la lecture de l’ouvrage de Lewis Carroll, Symbolic Logic (1896), qui ralluma le vieux feu qu’il croyait éteint. Dès lors, il publie de nombreux articles contenant certaines de ses innovations majeures en logique. L’objet de cet article est de discuter la familiarité de MacColl et son appréciation du travail de Carroll, et de comprendre comment cela l’amena à réinvestir le domaine de la logique. Rien n’indique que les deux hommes se soient jamais rencontrés ou aient échangé une correspondance personnelle. Cependant, MacColl recensa dans le journal The Athenaeum plusieurs ouvrages de Carroll, essentiellement en géométrie et en logique. Souvent, Carroll répondait aux critiques de MacColl dans les éditions suivantes de ses ouvrages. Une discussion de ces sources fournit des éclaircissements intéressants sur les investigations mathématiques et logiques de MacColl et Carroll.

Dans une lettre adressée à Bertrand Russell, le 17 mai 1905, Hugh MacColl raconte avoir abandonné l’étude de la logique après 1884, pendant près de treize ans, et explique que ce fut la lecture de l’ouvrage de Lewis Carroll, Symbolic Logic (1896), qui ralluma le vieux feu qu’il croyait éteint. Dès lors, il publie de nombreux articles contenant certaines de ses innovations majeures en logique. L’objet de cet article est de discuter la familiarité de MacColl et son appréciation du travail de Carroll, et de comprendre comment cela l’amena à réinvestir le domaine de la logique. Rien n’indique que les deux hommes se soient jamais rencontrés ou aient échangé une correspondance personnelle. Cependant, MacColl recensa dans le journal The Athenaeum plusieurs ouvrages de Carroll, essentiellement en géométrie et en logique. Souvent, Carroll répondait aux critiques de MacColl dans les éditions suivantes de ses ouvrages. Une discussion de ces sources fournit des éclaircissements intéressants sur les investigations mathématiques et logiques de MacColl et Carroll.