Skip to main content

EnE Sentences and Local Extent in Diagrams

  • Chapter
Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning

Abstract

Most diagrams, even if they can be interpreted as embeddings in infinite objects, are nevertheless finite in extent if they are to be presented conventionally. In many applications where diagrams are used to explain, instruct, communicate, cogitate or conjecture, this finiteness implies local extent. By this we mean that even if they are used to reason about potentially unbounded domains or constructs, the fact that they can be used at all suggests that only local properties are being examined. We are interested in how the features of such diagrams can be described in logic, and how diagram manipulations that represent actions can be justified. In particular, we establish a correspondence between a substructure construction which formalises local extent and a class of sentences preserved under extension from, and reduction to, this substructure. The sentence class is called EnE because it has the form of successively nested existential and negated existential subsentences, and appear to cover most of the applications so far encountered. The hope is that this understanding can be used to mark out the local regions of diagrams that can be safely isolated for manipulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J. (1995). Heterogeneous logic. In J.I. Glasgow, N.H. Narayanan and B. Chandrasekaran (Eds), Diagrammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 209–232.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chang, C.C. and Keisler, H.J. (1973). Model theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Fikes, R.E. and Nilsson, N.J. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2:189–208.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Foo, N., Nayak, A., Pagnucco, M., Peppas, P. and Zhang, Y. (1997). Action localness, genericity and invariants in STRIPS. In Proceedings of the fifteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI’97, Nagoya, August. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 549–554.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Foo, N. (1998). Diagrammatic reasoning about linked lists. In Lee, H.Y. and Motoda, H. (Eds), Proceedings of the fifth Pacific Rim international conference on artificial intelligence, PRICAI’98: Topics in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI v. 1531. Berlin: Springer, pp. 565–574.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gaifman, H. (1982). On local and nonlocal properties. In J. Stern (Ed.), Logic colloquium ’81. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 105–135.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Glasgow, J.I., Narayanan, N.H. and Chandrasekaran, B. (Eds) (1995). Diagrammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gurr, C.A. (1998). Theories of visual and diagrammatic reasoning: Foundational issues. In Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on visual and diagrammatic reasoning. Orlando, FL: AAAI Press, pp. 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Myers, K. and Konolige, K. (1995). Reasoning with analogical representations. In J.I. Glasgow, N.H. Narayanan and B. Chandrasekaran (Eds), Diagrammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 273–301.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shimojima, A. (1996). Operational constraints in diagrammatic reasoning. In J. Barwise and G. Allwein (Eds), Logical reasoning with diagrams. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shin, S.J. (1994). The logical status of diagrams. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Shoenfield, J. (1967). Mathematical logic. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sowa, J. (1984). Conceptual structures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Foo, N. (2002). EnE Sentences and Local Extent in Diagrams. In: Anderson, M., Meyer, B., Olivier, P. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0109-3_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0109-3_20

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-242-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0109-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics