Lorenz Demey

This paper is concerned with the ancient discussion on privative negation (e.g., 'unjust') and infinite negation (e.g., 'not-just'). We formalize and compare the positions of Aristotle and Alexander of Aphrodisias, of Proclus and Ammonius Hermiae, and of Porphyry (as presented by Boethius). Each of these formalizations takes the form of a logical system, which is intended to capture the main tenets of the position it formalizes. As an additional point of reference, we also discuss the system of contemporary, Boolean predicate logic. Our comparison focuses on the diagrams that each position gives rise to, and we show how our formalizations provide a unified and systematic perspective on these diagrams. In particular, we argue that the ancient discussion on privative and infinite negation can be understood through the lens of the so-called 'logic-sensitivity' of Aristotelian diagrams. © 2025 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

What does the Kantian realm of ends look like? To partially answer that question, game theory will be used to analyse how Kantians would handle situations of strategic interaction. Starting from a thorough understanding of Kant's categorical imperative, three purportedly Kantian game theoretical models will be analysed and argued to be inconsistent with the categorical imperative. As these existing models are unfit for analysing strategic interaction in the realm of ends, a genuinely Kantian model will be constructed by adding the concepts of ‘moral field’, ‘moral range’ and ‘Kantian utility function’ to the standard game-theoretical model. Throughout the paper, the prisoner's dilemma will be used both as a case study and as a ground for argumentation.

Around the turn of the 20th century, Keynes and Johnson extended the well-known square of opposition to an octagon of opposition, in order to account for subject negation (e.g., statements like ‘all non-S are P’). The main goal of this paper is to study the logical properties of the Keynes-Johnson (KJ) octagons of opposition. In particular, we will discuss three concrete examples of KJ octagons: the original one for subject-negation, a contemporary one from knowledge representation, and a third one (hitherto not yet studied) from deontic logic. We show that these three KJ octagons are all Aristotelian isomorphic, but not all Boolean isomorphic to each other (the first two are representable by bitstrings of length 7, whereas the third one is representable by bitstrings of length 6). These results nicely fit within our ongoing research efforts toward setting up a systematic classification of squares, octagons, and other diagrams of opposition. Finally, obtaining a better theoretical understanding of the KJ octagons allows us to answer some open questions that have arisen in recent applications of these diagrams.

The Region Connection Calculus (RCC) is a qualitative spatial reasoning formalism, developed in knowledge representation and geographical information systems. We argue that RCC can be viewed as a more fine-grained approach to the use of Euler diagrams to visualize categorical statements like ‘all A are B’. We present RCC using the syntax of first-order modal logic and a topological semantics. We compare the Gergonne relations (a well-known set of 5 jointly exhaustive and pairwise disjoint relations between two non-empty sets, visualized using Euler-type diagrams) with RCC8 (a similar set of 8 relations for regions).

The workshop took place in Leuven, Belgium, and was hosted by the KU Leuven's Centre for Logic and Analytic Philosophy. The workshop’s theme was the syntactical treatment of (alethic, epistemic, etc.) modalities. The standard view on modalities nowadays is that they are operators. Syntactic theories, however, treat modalities as predicates, and thus have to assume a background theory which is sufficiently strong to encode its own formulas (usually, one works with some system of arithmetic and Gödel coding). As a consequence, such theories suffer from paradoxes of self-referentiality. For example, just as the liar sentence states of itself that it is false, the knower sentence states of itself that it is unknown. Kaplan and Montague (1960: 'A paradox regained', Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, vol. 1, pp. 79–90) famously showed that any sufficiently strong theory that contains the knower is inconsistent.

Aristotelian diagrams, such as the square of opposition and other, more complex diagrams, have a long history in philosophical logic. Alpha-structures and ladders are two specific kinds of Aristotelian diagrams, which are often studied together because of their close interactions. The present paper builds upon this research line, by reformulating and investigating alpha-structures and ladders in the contemporary setting of logical geometry, a mathematically sophisticated framework for studying Aristotelian diagrams. In particular, this framework allows us to formulate well-defined functions that construct alpha-structures and ladders out of each other. In order to achieve this, we point out the crucial importance of imposing an ordering on the elements in the diagrams involved, and thus formulate all our results in terms of ordered versions of alpha-structures and ladders. These results shed interesting new light on the prospects of developing a systematic classification of Aristotelian diagrams, which is one of the main ongoing research efforts within logical geometry today.

In logical geometry, Aristotelian diagrams are studied in a precise and systematic way. Although there has recently been a good amount of progress in logical geometry, it is still unknown which underlying mathematical framework is best suited for formalizing the study of these diagrams. Hence, in this paper, the main aim is to formulate such a framework, using the powerful language of category theory. We build multiple categories, which all have Aristotelian diagrams as their objects, while having different kinds of morphisms between these diagrams. The categories developed here are assessed according to their ability to generalize previous work from logical geometry as well as their interesting category-theoretical properties. According to these evaluations, the most promising category has as its morphisms those functions on fragments that increase in informativity on both the opposition and implication relations. Focusing on this category can significantly increase the effectiveness of further research in logical geometry.

This paper explores the interplay between logic-sensitivity and bitstring semantics in the square of opposition. Bitstring semantics is a combinatorial technique for representing the formulas that appear in a logical diagram, while logic-sensitivity entails that such a diagram may depend, not only on the formulas involved, but also on the logic with respect to which they are interpreted. These two topics have already been studied extensively in logical geometry, and are thus well-understood by themselves. However, the precise details of their interplay turn out to be far more complicated. In particular, the paper describes an elegant and natural interaction between bitstrings and logic-sensitivity, which makes perfect sense when bitstrings are viewed as purely combinatorial entities. However, when we view bitstrings as semantically meaningful entities (which is actually the standard perspective, cf. the term ‘bitstring semantics’!), this interaction does not seem to have a full and equally natural counterpart. The paper describes some attempts to address this situation, but all of them are ultimately found wanting. For now, it thus remains an open problem to capture this interaction between bitstrings and logic-sensitivity from a semantic (rather than merely a combinatorial) perspective.

In recent years, a number of authors have started studying Aristotelian diagrams containing metalogical notions, such as tautology, contradiction, satisfiability, contingency, strong and weak interpretations of contrariety, etc. The present paper is a contribution to this line of research, and its main aims are both to extend and to deepen our understanding of metalogical diagrams. As for extensions, we not only study several metalogical decorations of larger and less widely known Aristotelian diagrams, but also consider metalogical decorations of another type of logical diagrams, viz. duality diagrams. At a more fundamental level, we present a unifying perspective which sheds new light on the connections between new and existing metalogical diagrams, as well as between object- and metalogical diagrams. Overall, the paper studies two types of logical diagrams and four kinds of metalogical decorations.

In this paper we provide an analysis of the logical relations within the conceptual or lexical field of angles in 2D geometry. The basic tripartition into acute/right/obtuse angles is extended in two steps: first zero and straight angles are added, and secondly reflex and full angles are added, in both cases extending the logical space of angles. Within the framework of logical geometry, the resulting partitions of these logical spaces yield bitstring semantics of increasing complexity. These bitstring analyses allow a straightforward account of the Aristotelian relations between angular concepts. In addition, also relational concepts such as complementary and supplementary angles receive a natural bitstring analysis.

The main purpose of this paper is to reassess the debate between Boehner and Karger about Ockham’s views on the infallibility of intuitive cognition, and to present a new account of infallible intuitive cognition. After a detailed overview of Ockham’s theory of intuitive and abstractive cognition, the Boehner/Karger debate is examined. At the center of this debate are two conflicting interpretations of a certain passage in Ockham’s writings. It is shown that neither of these interpretations is ultimately successful. Next, a third interpretation is introduced and shown to be superior to the previous two. This new interpretation leads to a refutation of one of Karger’s main arguments against Boehner’s theory of the infallibility of intuitive cognition. Finally, a distinction between weak and strong infallibility is introduced, and it is argued that intuitive cognition is always weakly infallible, and often also strongly infallible.

© The Author 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Logical geometry provides a broad framework for systematically studying the logical properties of Aristotelian diagrams. The main aim of this paper is to present and illustrate the foundations of a computational approach to logical geometry. In particular, after briefly discussing some key notions from logical geometry, I describe a logical problem concerning Aristotelian diagrams that is of considerable theoretical importance, viz. the task of finding the maximal Boolean complexity of a given family of Aristotelian diagrams, and I then present and discuss a simple algorithm for automatically solving this task. This algorithm is naturally implemented within the paradigm of logic programming. In order to illustrate the theoretical fruitfulness of this algorithm, I also show how it sheds new light on several well-known families of Aristotelian diagrams.

© 2018, Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature. Aristotelian diagrams are used extensively in contemporary research in artificial intelligence. The present paper investigates the geometric and cognitive differences between two types of Aristotelian diagrams for the Boolean algebra B4. Within the class of 3D visualizations, the main geometric distinction is that between the cube-based diagrams and the tetrahedron-based diagrams. Geometric properties such as collinearity, central symmetry and distance are examined from a cognitive perspective, focusing on diagram design principles such as congruence/isomorphism and apprehension. The cognitive effectiveness of the different visualizations is compared for the representation of implication versus opposition relations, and for subdiagram embeddings.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018. The aim of this paper is to lay out the foundations of a typology of diagrams in linguistics. We draw a distinction between linguistic parameters — concerning what information is being represented — and diagrammatic parameters — concerning how it is represented. The six binary linguistic parameters of the typology are: mono- versus multilingual, static versus dynamic, mono- versus multimodular, object-level versus meta-level, qualitative versus quantitative, and mono- versus interdisciplinary. The two diagrammatic parameters are iconic/concrete versus symbolic/abstract representation and static versus dynamic representation. We briefly illustrate how different types of linguistic diagrams can be analysed in terms of the interaction between the linguistic and the diagrammatic parameters.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018. Nearly all squares of opposition found in the literature represent both the Aristotelian relations and the duality relations, and exhibit a very close correspondence between both types of logical relations. This paper investigates the interplay between Aristotelian and duality relations in diagrams beyond the square. In particular, we study a Buridan octagon, a Lenzen octagon, a Keynes-Johnson octagon and a Moretti octagon. Each of these octagons is a natural extension of the square, both from an Aristotelian perspective and from a duality perspective. The results of our comparative analysis turn out to be highly nuanced.

© 2017 by the authors. Aristotelian diagrams visualize the logical relations among a finite set of objects. These diagrams originated in philosophy, but recently, they have also been used extensively in artificial intelligence, in order to study various knowledge representation formalisms. In this paper, we develop the idea that Aristotelian diagrams can be fruitfully studied as geometrical entities. In particular, we focus on four polyhedral Aristotelian diagrams for the Boolean algebra B4, viz. the rhombic dodecahedron, the tetrakis hexahedron, the tetraicosahedron and the nested tetrahedron. After an in-depth investigation of the geometrical properties and interrelationships of these polyhedral diagrams, we analyze the correlation between logical and geometrical distance in each of these diagrams. The outcome of this analysis is that the Aristotelian rhombic dodecahedron and tetrakis hexahedron exhibit the strongest degree of correlation between logical and geometrical distance; the tetraicosahedron performs worse; and the nested tetrahedron has the lowest degree of correlation. Finally, these results are used to shed new light on the relative strengths and weaknesses of these polyhedral Aristotelian diagrams, by appealing to the congruence principle from cognitive research on diagram design.

This paper studies the logical context-sensitivity of Aristotelian diagrams. I propose a new account of measuring this type of context-sensitivity, and illustrate it by means of a small-scale example. Next, I turn toward a more large-scale case study, based on Aristotelian diagrams for the categorical statements with subject negation. On the practical side, I describe an interactive application that can help to explain and illustrate the phenomenon of context-sensitivity in this particular case study. On the theoretical side, I show that applying the proposed measure of context-sensitivity leads to a number of precise yet highly intuitive results.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016. We develop a systematic approach for dealing with informationally equivalent Aristotelian diagrams, based on the interaction between the logical properties of the visualized information and the geometrical properties of the concrete polygon/polyhedron. To illustrate the account’s fruitfulness, we apply it to all Aristotelian families of 4-formula fragments that are closed under negation and to all Aristotelian families of 6-formula fragments that are closed under negation.