Logical Geometries and Information in the Square of Oppositions

Abstract

The Aristotelian square of oppositions is a well-known diagram in logic and linguistics. In recent years, several extensions of the square have been discovered. However, these extensions have failed to become as widely known as the square. In this paper we argue that there is indeed a fundamental difference between the square and its extensions, viz., a difference in informativity. To do this, we distinguish between concrete Aristotelian diagrams (such as the square) and, on a more abstract level, the Aristotelian geometry (a set of logical relations). We then introduce two new logical geometries (and their corresponding diagrams), and develop a formal, well-motivated account of their informativity. This enables us to show that the square is strictly more informative than many of the more complex diagrams.

The Porphyrian Tree and Multiple Inheritance: A Rejoinder to Tylman on Computer Science and Philosophy

“…philosophical] sources". As a philosopher, I would like to add that, vice versa, contemporary computer science can itself also be a fruitful source of new philosophical insights (Demey 2014). An increasing awareness of this mutually beneficial relation has led to the recent establishment of conference series such as History and Philosophy of Computing (HaPoC) and Computability in Europe (CiE).…”

“…5 were first raised by Vignero and Termont, respectively. The ideas presented in this paper were first proposed in one of the additional theses of my PhD dissertation (Demey 2014). My research is financially supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO).…”

Interactively Illustrating the Context-Sensitivity of Aristotelian Diagrams

“…Note that the seemingly absolute statement "ϕ and ψ can be false together" corresponds to the statement "there exists an S-model that satisfies ¬ϕ ∧ ¬ψ" (formally: S |= ¬(¬ϕ ∧ ¬ψ)), which refers to the logical system S, and is thus logic-dependent. The restrictions made in Definition 2 (S-contingent, pairwise non-equivalent, closed under negation) are motivated by historical as well as technical reasons (see [42, In its theoretical study of Aristotelian diagrams, logical geometry makes extensive use of bitstrings. Bitstrings are representations of formulas that allow us to easily determine the Aristotelian relations holding between these formulas.…”

“…Logical geometry systematically investigates Aristotelian diagrams as objects of independent interest (regardless of their role as lingua franca), for example, in terms of their information content [42]. One of the major insights to come out of these investigations is that Aristotelian diagrams are context-sensitive: the exact details of an Aristotelian diagram are highly dependent on the precise logical system with respect to which this diagram is constructed.…”

Aristotelian Diagrams in the Debate on Future Contingents

“…This logical construction (from square to hexagon via Boolean closure) was first studied in the 1950s by the logicians Jacoby (1950), Sesmat (1951) and Blanché (1953Blanché ( , 1966, and the resulting hexagon is therefore nowadays often called the 'Jacoby-Sesmat-Blanché (JSB) hexagon' (Smessaert and Demey 2014). 8 One can show that a (strong) JSB hexagon corresponds to a tripartition of logical space, with the three pairwise contrary statements constituting the 'cells' of the partition (Smessaert 2009).…”