Main problems of diagrammatic reasoning. part I: The generalization problem

Foundations of Science

Volumn 14, Issue 1-2, 2009, Pages 75-96

  Kulpa, Zenon ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF FUNDAMENTAL TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Poland)

Author keywords

Diagram particularity; Diagrammatic reasoning; Diagrammatics; Divergence; Generalization; Reasoning errors; Rigorous reasoning

Indexed keywords

DIAGRAM PARTICULARITY; DIAGRAMMATIC REASONING; DIAGRAMMATICS; DIVERGENCE; GENERALIZATION; REASONING ERRORS; RIGOROUS REASONING;

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

ERRORS;

EID: 60449094347     PISSN: 12331821     EISSN: 15728471     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10699-008-9148-5     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Arnheim R. (1969) Visual thinking. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
2. Bundy A., Richardson J. (1999) Proofs about lists using ellipsis. In: Ganzinger H., McAllester D., Voronkov V. (eds) Logic for programming and automated reasoning. LNAI 1705. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 1-12
3. DIAGRAMS. (1992). Reasoning with diagrammatic representations (1992 AAAI spring symposium). Menlo Park: CAAAAI Press.
4. Dove, I. (2002). Can pictures prove? Logique & Analyse, 179-180, 309-340.
5. Dubnov, Y. S. (1955). Oshibky v geometricheskykh dokazatyelstvakh (in Russian). Moscow: GITTL. [English translation: Dubnov, Y. S. (1963). Mistakes in geometric proofs. Boston, MA: Heath].
6. Foo, N. Y., Pagnucco, M., & Nayak, A. C. (1999). Diagrammatic proofs. In Proceedings of 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99) (pp. 378-383), Stockholm, August 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.
7. Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle a. S: Louis Nebert [English edition: Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. Reprinted in: Van Heijenoort, J. (Ed.), (1967). From Frege to Godel: A source book in mathematical logic (pp. 1879-1931). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press].
8. Giaquinto M. (2007) Visual thinking in mathematics: An epistemological study. Oxford University Press, Oxford
9. Greaves M. (2001) The philosophical status of diagrams. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
10. Jamnik M. (2001) Mathematical reasoning with diagrams: From intuition to automation. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
11. King, J. R., & Schattschneider, D. (Eds.), (1997). Geometry turned on!: Dynamic software in learning, teaching, and research. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
12. Kulpa Z. (1983) Are impossible figures possible? Signal Processing 5(3): 201-220
13. Kulpa Z. (1987) Putting order in the impossible. Perception 16: 201-214
14. Kulpa Z. (2003a) Self-consistency, imprecision, and impossible cases in diagrammatic representations. Machine GRAPHICS & VISION 12(1): 147-160
15. Kulpa, Z. (2003b). From picture processing to interval diagrams. IFTR Reports 4/2003, Warsaw, 313 pp. See http://www.ippt.gov.pl/zkulpa/ diagrams/fpptid.html.
16. Kulpa, Z. (2009a). Main problems of diagrammatic reasoning: Part II: The imprecision problem (in preparation).
17. Kulpa, Z. (2009b). Representing sets in diagrams: Spaces of all triangles (in preparation).
18. Le T.L., Kulpa Z. (2003) Diagrammatic spreadsheet. Machine GRAPHICS & VISION 12(1): 133-146
19. Le T.L., Kulpa Z. (2004) Diagrammatic spreadsheet: An overview. In: Blackwell A., Marriott K., Shimojima A. (eds) Diagrammatic representation and inference. LNAI 2980. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 420-423
20. Lemon O., Pratt I. (1997) Spatial logic and the complexity of diagrammatic reasoning. Machine GRAPHICS & VISION 6(1): 77-88
21. Lindsay R.K. (2000) Playing with diagrams. In: Anderson M., Cheng P., Haarslev V. (eds) Theory and application of diagrams. LNAI 1889. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 300-313
22. Luengo, I. (1995). Diagrams in geometry. Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
23. MacInnis, R., McKinna, J., Parsons, J., & Dyckhoff, R. (2004). A mechanised environment for Frege's Begriffsschrift notation. In Proceedings of Mathematical User-Interfaces Workshop 2004, Bialowieza, Poland, September 18, 2004. See http://www.activemath.org/~paul/MathUI04/ proceedings/FregesBegriffsSchrift.html.
24. Maxwell E.A. (1959) Fallacies in mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
25. Miller, N. (2001). A diagrammatic formal system for Euclidean geometry. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
26. Muzalewski, M. (1993). An outline of PC Mizar. Brussels: Foundation Philippe le Hodey. See http://mizar.org/project/bibliography.html.
27. Needham T. (1997) Visual complex analysis. Clarendon Press, Oxford
28. Nelsen, R. B. (1993). Proofs without words: Exercises in visual thinking. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
29. Otte M. (2006) Proof-analysis and continuity. Foundations of Science 11: 121-155
30. Pollet M., Sorge V., Kerber M. (2004) Intuitive and formal representations: The case of matrices. In: Asperti A., Bancerek G., Trybulec A. (eds) Mathematical knowledge management. LNCS 3119. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 317-331
31. Shin S.-J. (1994) The logical status of diagrams. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
32. Winterstein, D. (2004). Using diagrammatic reasoning for theorem proving in a continuous domain (263 pp.). Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
33. Winterstein D., Bundy A., Jamnik M. (2000) A proposal for automating diagrammatic reasoning in continuous domains. In: Anderson M., Cheng P., Haarslev V. (eds) Theory and application of diagrams. LNAI 1889. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 286-299