Reetu Bhattacharjee

Logic diagrams help people understand and solve problems in logic. This paper explores how different types of these diagrams try to find a good balance between showing complex ideas fully (expressiveness) and being easy to understand visually (clarity). It traces their journey from early, straightforward drawings to more complex systems with clear rules to prevent confusion. This change often involved making a strategic choice, a calculated “chance,” to move away from very direct visual representation to gain greater overall clarity and power in problem-solving. This tension between comprehensive representation and ease of interpretation is a central challenge for anyone designing diagrammatic systems for logical relationships. A diagram that is too simple cannot convey intricate ideas completely, but one that tries to show every detail might become too complicated to understand. This means that different diagram types are often best suited for specific logical tasks or levels of complexity.

Gestures are usually regarded as a casual element of communication processes between logicians. By contrast, we aim to show that gestures have played a significant role in logic. We argue that the development of communication techniques and their standardization have led to the rise of formal notation systems commonly used in logic today. In order to substantiate this claim, the historical development of the use of gestures in (early) modern logic is investigated. This investigation uncovers exemplary communication and proof techniques that illustrate the efficacy of gestures as representational media in formal logic. Revisiting the tradition of gestures in logic offers promising paths and insights for today’s logic as a communication practice in the digital age.

Euler diagrams often require several figures to adequately represent propositions and syllogisms. Euler’s followers, notably Friedrich Ueberweg, endeavored to overcome this difficulty with the use of dotted lines to express uncertainty about the relation between the terms of a proposition. Subsequently, Venn regarded such attempts as ineffectual and went to construct his own celebrated scheme. In this paper, we argue that Ueberweg’s method could be expanded to meet Venn’s expectations, and hence, produce alternative Venn-like diagrams.

‘Byzantine logic diagrams’ have been used since at least late antiquity, and became popular in Europe in the 16th century. However, since the criticism of W. Hamilton and J. Venn in the 19th century, Byzantine diagrams have been largely dismissed as obsolete. This paper challenges this prevailing view. Initially, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research pertaining to these diagrams, illustrating their applicability in analyzing assertoric syllogisms. Subsequently, we propose that the expressive capacity of these diagrams extends far beyond their traditional use. In particular, we demonstrate that the expressivity of these diagrams is not limited to checking the validity of syllogisms. Rather, we show that there are various extensions of Byzantine diagrams, including opposition relations, modal logic, particular instances, n-term diagrams and logical connectives. These extensions are compositional and can therefore be combined to create very complex Byzantine diagrams that go far beyond what has been commonly believed since Hamilton and Venn.

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams, Diagrams 2024, held in Münster, Germany, during September 27–October 1, 2024. The 17 full papers, 19 short papers and 11 papers of other types included in this book were carefully reviewed and selected from 69 submissions. They were organized in topical sections as follows: Keynote Talks; Analysis of Diagrams; Euler and Venn Diagrams; Diagrams in Logic; Diagrams and Applications; Diagram Tools; Historical Aspects of Diagrams; and Posters.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of multimodal communication research, this paper explores the transformative role of machine learning (ML), particularly using multimodal large language models, in tracking, augmenting, annotating, and analyzing multimodal data. Building upon the foundations laid in our previous work, we explore the capabilities that have emerged over the past years. The integration of ML allows researchers to gain richer insights from multimodal data, enabling a deeper understanding of human (and non-human) communication across modalities. In particular, augmentation methods have become indispensable because they facilitate the synthesis of multimodal data and further increase the diversity and richness of training datasets. In addition, ML-based tools have accelerated annotation processes, reducing human effort while improving accuracy. Continued advances in ML and the proliferation of more powerful models suggest even more sophisticated analyses of multimodal communication, e.g., through models like ChatGPT, which can now “understand” images. This makes it all the more important to assess what these models can achieve now or in the near future, and what will remain unattainable beyond that. We also acknowledge the ethical and practical challenges associated with these advancements, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI and data privacy. We must be careful to ensure that benefits are shared equitably and that technology respects individual rights. In this paper, we highlight advances in ML-based multimodal research and discuss what the near future holds. Our goal is to provide insights into this research stream for both the multimodal research community, especially in linguistics, and the broader ML community. In this way, we hope to foster collaboration in an area that is likely to shape the future of technologically mediated human communication.

In this paper, we analyze and discuss Schopenhauer’s n-term diagrams for eristic dialectics from a graph-theoretical perspective. Unlike logic, eristic dialectics does not examine the validity of an isolated argument, but the progression and persuasiveness of an argument in the context of a dialogue or even controversy. To represent these dialogue situations, Schopenhauer created large maps with concepts and Euler-type diagrams, which from today’s perspective are a specific form of graphs. We first present the original method with Euler-type diagrams, then give the most important graph-theoretical definitions, then discuss Schopenhauer’s diagrams graph-theoretically and finally give an example of how the graphs or diagrams can be used to analyze dialogues.