A case study of multimodal systems and a new interpretation of Charles S. Peirce's theory of reasoning and signs based on an analysis of his system of Existential Graphs. At the dawn of modern logic, Charles S. Peirce invented two types of logical systems, one symbolic and the other graphical. In this book Sun-Joo Shin explores the philosophical roots of the birth of Peirce's Existential Graphs in his theory of representation and logical notation. Shin demonstrates that Peirce is the first philosopher to lay a solid philosophical foundation for multimodal representation systems. Shin analyzes Peirce's well-known, but much-criticized nonsymbolic representation system. She presents a new approach to his graphical system based on her discovery of its unique nature and on a reconstruction of Peirce's theory of representation. By seeking to understand graphical systems on their own terms, she uncovers the reasons why graphical systems, and Existential Graphs in particular, have been underappreciated among logicians. Drawing on perspectives from the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, logic, and computer science, Shin provides evidence for a genuinely interdisciplinary project on multimodal reasoning. Bradford Books imprint

Diagrams are widely used in reasoning about problems in physics, mathematics and logic, but have traditionally been considered to be only heuristic tools and not valid elements of mathematical proofs. This book challenges this prejudice against visualisation in the history of logic and mathematics and provides a formal foundation for work on natural reasoning in a visual mode. The author presents Venn diagrams as a formal system of representation equipped with its own syntax and semantics and specifies rules of transformation that make this system sound and complete. The system is then extended to the equivalent of a first-order monadic language. The soundness of these diagrammatic systems refutes the contention that graphical representation is misleading in reasoning. The validity of the transformation rules ensures that the correct application of the rules will not lead to fallacies. The book concludes with a discussion of some fundamental differences between graphical systems and linguistic systems. This groundbreaking work will have important influence on research in logic, philosophy and knowledge representation.

No abstract

While it is crucial to understand the formal structure of the semantic domain of an information system, in this paper we raise an ontological issue about the syntactic aspect of a representation system through a case study on a diagrammatic system. The uptake in the software industry of notations for designing systems visually has been accelerated with the standardization of the Unified Modeling Language (UML). The formalization of diagrammatic notations is important for the development of essential tool support and to allow reasoning to take place at the diagrammatic level. Focusing on an extended version of Venn and Euler diagram(which was developed to complement UML in the specification of software systems), this paper presents two levels of syntax for this system: type-syntax and token-syntax. Token-syntax is about particular diagrams instantiated on some physical medium, and type-syntax provides a formal definition with which a concrete representation of a diagram must comply. While these two levels of syntax are closely related, the domains of type-syntax and token-syntax are ontologically independent, that is, one is abstract and the other concrete. We discuss the roles of type-syntax and token-syntax in diagrammatic systems and show that it is important to consider both levels of syntax in diagrammatic reasoning systems and in developing software tools to support such systems

Let me start by saying that I had the privilege of witnessing the birth of Jon Barwise's new research on heterogeneous logic and its subsequent developments. I entered the Stanford philosophy graduate program in the Fall of 1987, became Barwise and Etchemendy's first research assistant on the project of diagrammatic/heterogeneous reasoning during summer of 1989, and under their guidance completed my thesis, “Valid reasoning and visual representation,” in August, 1991. With this experience I would like to focus on the more personal and informal aspects of Jon's research on heterogeneous logic which may not be conveyed by his articles. (Accordingly, I have written this paper without footnotes or other references except to Jon's work.) The present article can only hint at the depth and the influence of Jon's work in this area.In the first section, I single out an important feature of the project on heterogeneous logic Jon founded together with John Etchemendy about 15 years ago. I title it “resolving conflicts” since the research, I strongly believe, grew out of Jon's personal attitude toward how to resolve a tension between opposite extremes.The second section focuses on how teaching logic itself was shaped as part of Barwise and Etchemendy's research agenda. It is worthwhile noting that their textbook Language, Proof, and Logic constitutes part of their research and, hence, the success of the book vindicates the goal of the overall project.