Abstract
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 defines 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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Proofs of Theorems 1 and  2 are omitted for reasons of space but can be found in an appendix on our website at http://readableproofs.org/looking-glass.
References
Bassler, O.B.: Leibniz on intension, extension, and the representation of syllogistic inference. Synthese 2(116), 117–139 (1998)
Couturat, L.: La Logique de Leibniz. Félix Alcan, Metz (1901)
Dipert, R.R.: Individuals and extensional logic in schroder’s ‘vorlesungen uber die algebra der logik’. Mod. Log. 2–3(1), 140–159 (1991)
Fitting, M.: Intensional logic (2015). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/logic-intensional/. Accessed Dec 2017
Hurley, P.J.: A Concise Introduction to Logic, 12th edn. Cengage Learning, Stamford (2015)
Lewis, C.I.: A Survey of Symbolic Logic. University of California Press, Berkeley (1918)
Moktefi, A.: Is Euler’s circle a symbol or an icon? Sign Syst. Stud. 43(4), 597+ (2015)
Moktefi, A., Pietarinen, A.V.: On the diagrammatic representation of existential statements with Venn diagrams. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 24(4), 361–374 (2015)
Shearman, A.T.: The Development of Symbolic Logic. Williams and Norgate, London (1906)
Shin, S.J.: The Logical Status of Diagrams. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)
Stapleton, G.: Delivering the potential of diagrammatic logics. In: International Workshop on Diagrams, Logic and Cognition, vol. 1132, pp. 1–8. CEUR (2013). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1132/paper1.pdf
Venn, J.: On the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of propositions and reasonings. Philos. Mag. 10, 1–18 (1880)
Venn, J.: Symbolic Logic. Macmillan, Basingstoke (1894)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Stapleton, G., Moktefi, A., Howse, J., Burton, J. (2018). Euler Diagrams Through the Looking Glass: From Extent to Intent. In: Chapman, P., Stapleton, G., Moktefi, A., Perez-Kriz, S., Bellucci, F. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10871. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91376-6_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91376-6_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91375-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91376-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)