MarketEuler diagram
Company Profile

Euler diagram

An Euler diagram is a diagrammatic means of representing sets and their relationships. They are particularly useful for explaining complex hierarchies and overlapping definitions. They are similar to another set diagramming technique, Venn diagrams. Unlike Venn diagrams, which show all possible relations between different sets, the Euler diagram shows only relevant relationships.

History
Diagrams reminiscent of Euler diagrams and with similar functions seem to have existed for a long time. However, exact dates for these diagrams can only be determined historically after the invention of printing press. Before Euler The first authors to print an Euler-esque diagram and briefly discuss it in their texts were Juan Luis Vives (in 1531), Nicolaus Reimers (in 1589), Bartholomäus Keckermann (in 1601) and Johann Heinrich Alsted (in 1614). The first detailed elaboration of these diagrams can be traced back to Erhard Weigel (1625–1699), who called this type of diagram a 'logometrum' (a measuring instrument for logic). Weigel was the first to prove all valid syllogisms with the aid of shapes in a two-dimensional plane. In the case of generally affirmative judgements (all-sentences), the geometric shape for the subject should lie completely within the shape for the predicate. In the case of negative judgements (no-sentences), it should lie completely outside. In the case of particular judgements (sentences with 'some', 'some...not'), the geometric shapes should partially overlap and not overlap. To prove a syllogism, one must first draw all possible figures for the premises and then see whether one can also read the conclusion from them. If this is the case, the syllogism is valid; otherwise, it is invalid. Erhard Weigel used initial letters to represent the diagrams, whereas his students, such as Johann Christoph Sturm (1635–1703) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), used circles or lines. Another tradition can be traced back to Christian Weise (1642–1708), who is said to have used these diagrams in his teaching. Euler and the time after In his Letters to a German Princess, Euler focused solely on traditional syllogistics. He further developed Weigel's approach and not only tested the validity of syllogisms, but also developed a method for drawing conclusions from premises. At the same time as Euler, Gottfried Ploucquet and Johann Heinrich Lambert also used similar diagrams. However, the diagrams only became widely known in the 1790s through Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who used them in his lectures on logic and his students then spread knowledge of the diagrams throughout Europe. In the 19th century, Euler diagrams became the most widely used form of representation in logic, esp. by 'Kantians' such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Christian Friedrich Krause or Sir William Hamilton. (see descriptions, left) The small text to the left erroneously says: "The first employment of circular diagrams in logic improperly ascribed to Euler. To be found in Christian Weise", a book which was actually written by Johann Christian Lange. was not Euler but rather Weise; however the latter book was actually written by Johann Christian Lange, rather than Weise. In Hamilton's illustration of the four categorical propositions Euler diagrams in the era of Venn John Venn (1834–1923) comments on the remarkable prevalence of the Euler diagram: : "... of the first sixty logical treatises, published during the last century or so, which were consulted for this purpose–somewhat at random, as they happened to be most accessible–it appeared that thirty four appealed to the aid of diagrams, nearly all of these making use of the Eulerian scheme." But nevertheless, he contended, "the inapplicability of this scheme for the purposes of a really general logic" Given the Venn's assignments, then, the unshaded areas inside the circles can be summed to yield the following equation for Venn's example: : " is and is : therefore is " has the equation for the unshaded area inside the circles (but this is not entirely correct; see the next paragraph). In Venn the background surrounding the circles, does not appear: That is, the term marked "0", Nowhere is it discussed or labeled, but Couturat corrects this in his drawing. and the application of propositional logic to switching logic by (among others) Shannon, Stibitz, and Turing. For example, Hill & Peterson (1968) present the Venn diagram with shading and all. They give examples of Venn diagrams to solve example switching-circuit problems, but end up with this statement: ::"For more than three variables, the basic illustrative form of the Venn diagram is inadequate. Extensions are possible, however, the most convenient of which is the Karnaugh map, to be discussed in Chapter 6." and , in turn referenced (among other authors of logic texts) . In Veitch's method the variables are arranged in a rectangle or square; as described in Karnaugh map, Karnaugh in his method changed the order of the variables to correspond to what has become known as (the vertices of) a hypercube. Modern use of Euler diagrams In the 1990s, Euler diagrams were developed as a logical system. The cognitive advantages of the diagrams soon became apparent. The diagrams were therefore not only used as set diagrams, but have since been used in many different ways and functions in computer science including artificial intelligence and software engineering, information technology, bioscience, medicine, economics, statistics and many other fields, and their philosophy and history have been discussed. In 2000, the conference series The Theory and Application on Diagrams: An International Conference Series began, which regularly addresses current research on Euler diagrams, among other topics. == Relation between Euler and Venn diagrams ==
Relation between Euler and Venn diagrams
s (on left) showing how they can be easily transformed into equivalent Euler diagrams (right). In these, black shaded regions represent empty sets (to diagram universal quantification), red shaded regions with an x represent nonempty sets (to diagram existential quantification), and the other regions have not been specified as empty or non-empty. Venn diagrams are a more restrictive form of Euler diagrams. A Venn diagram must contain all 2n logically possible zones of overlap between its n curves, representing all combinations of inclusion/exclusion of its constituent sets. Regions not part of the set are indicated by coloring them black, in contrast to Euler diagrams, where membership in the set is indicated by overlap as well as color. When the number of sets grows beyond 3 a Venn diagram becomes visually complex, especially compared to the corresponding Euler diagram. The difference between Euler and Venn diagrams can be seen in the following example. Take the three sets: • A = \{1,\, 2,\, 5\} • B = \{1,\, 6\} • C = \{4,\, 7\} The Euler and the Venn diagrams of those sets are: File:3-set Euler diagram.svg|Euler diagram File:3-set Venn diagram.svg|Venn diagram In a logical setting, one can use model-theoretic semantics to interpret Euler diagrams, within a universe of discourse. In the examples below, the Euler diagram depicts that the sets Animal and Mineral are disjoint since the corresponding curves are disjoint, and also that the set Four Legs is a subset of the set of Animals. The Venn diagram, which uses the same categories of Animal, Mineral, and Four Legs, does not encapsulate these relationships. Traditionally the emptiness of a set in Venn diagrams is depicted by shading in the region. Euler diagrams represent emptiness either by shading or by the absence of a region. Often a set of well-formedness conditions are imposed; these are topological or geometric constraints imposed on the structure of the diagram. For example, connectedness of zones might be enforced, or concurrency of curves or multiple points might be banned, as might tangential intersection of curves. In the adjacent diagram, examples of small Venn diagrams are transformed into Euler diagrams by sequences of transformations; some of the intermediate diagrams have concurrency of curves. However, this sort of transformation of a Venn diagram with shading into an Euler diagram without shading is not always possible. There are examples of Euler diagrams with 9 sets that are not drawable using simple closed curves without the creation of unwanted zones since they would have to have non-planar dual graphs. Example: Euler- to Venn-diagram and Karnaugh map This example shows the Euler and Venn diagrams and Karnaugh map deriving and verifying the deduction "No Xs are Zs". In the illustration and table the following logical symbols are used: • 1 can be read as "true", 0 as "false" • ~ for NOT and abbreviated to ′ when illustrating the minterms e.g. x′ =defined NOT x, • + for Boolean OR (from Boolean algebra: 0 + 0 = 0, 0 + 1 = 1 + 0 = 1, 1 + 1 = 1) • & (logical AND) between propositions; in the minterms AND is omitted in a manner similar to arithmetic multiplication: e.g. x′y′z =defined ~x & ~y & z (From Boolean algebra: 0⋅0 = 0, 0⋅1 = 1⋅0 = 0, 1⋅1 = 1, where "⋅" is shown for clarity) • → (logical IMPLICATION): read as IF ... THEN ..., or " IMPLIES ", PQ = defined NOT P OR Q : " 'It is not the case that: AND AND 'If an then a ". Once the propositions are reduced to symbols and a propositional formula ( ~(y & z) & (x → y) ), one can construct the formula's truth table; from this table the Venn and/or the Karnaugh map are readily produced. By use of the adjacency of "1"s in the Karnaugh map (indicated by the grey ovals around terms 0 and 1 and around terms 2 and 6) one can "reduce" the example's Boolean equation i.e. (x′y′z′ + x′y′z) + (x′yz′ + xyz′) to just two terms: x′y′ + yz′. But the means for deducing the notion that "No X is Z", and just how the reduction relates to this deduction, is not forthcoming from this example. Given a proposed conclusion such as "No X is a Z", one can test whether or not it is a correct deduction by use of a truth table. The easiest method is put the starting formula on the left (abbreviate it as P) and put the (possible) deduction on the right (abbreviate it as Q) and connect the two with logical implication i.e. PQ, read as IF P THEN Q. If the evaluation of the truth table produces all 1s under the implication-sign (→, the so-called major connective) then PQ is a tautology. Given this fact, one can "detach" the formula on the right (abbreviated as Q) in the manner described below the truth table. Given the example above, the formula for the Euler and Venn diagrams is: : "No Ys are Zs" and "All Xs are Ys": ( ~(y & z) & (x → y) ) =defined P And the proposed deduction is: : "No Xs are Zs": ( ~ (x & z) ) =defined Q So now the formula to be evaluated can be abbreviated to: : ( ~(y & z) & (x → y) ) → ( ~ (x & z) ): PQ : IF ( "No Ys are Zs" and "All Xs are Ys" ) THEN ( "No Xs are Zs" ) At this point the above implication PQ (i.e. ~(y & z) & (x → y) ) → ~(x & z) ) is still a formula, and the deductionthe "detachment" of Q out of PQhas not occurred. But given the demonstration that PQ is tautology, the stage is now set for the use of the procedure of modus ponens to "detach" Q: "No Xs are Zs" and dispense with the terms on the left. Modus ponens (or "the fundamental rule of inference") is often written as follows: The two terms on the left, PQ and P, are called premises (by convention linked by a comma), the symbol ⊢ means "yields" (in the sense of logical deduction), and the term on the right is called the conclusion: : PQ, PQ For the modus ponens to succeed, both premises PQ and P must be true. Because, as demonstrated above the premise PQ is a tautology, "truth" is always the case no matter how x, y and z are valued, but "truth" is only the case for P in those circumstances when P evaluates as "true" (e.g. rows OR OR OR : x′y′z′ + x′y′z + x′yz′ + xyz′ = x′y′ + yz′). : PQ, PQ :* i.e.: ( ~(y & z) & (x → y) ) → ( ~ (x & z) ), ( ~(y & z) & (x → y) ) ⊢ ( ~ (x & z) ) :* i.e.: IF "No Ys are Zs" and "All Xs are Ys" THEN "No Xs are Zs", "No Ys are Zs" and "All Xs are Ys" ⊢ "No Xs are Zs" One is now free to "detach" the conclusion "No Xs are Zs", perhaps to use it in a subsequent deduction (or as a topic of conversation). The use of tautological implication means that other possible deductions exist besides "No Xs are Zs"; the criterion for a successful deduction is that the 1s under the sub-major connective on the right include all the 1s under the sub-major connective on the left (the major connective being the implication that results in the tautology). For example, in the truth table, on the right side of the implication (→, the major connective symbol) the bold-face column under the sub-major connective symbol " ~ " has all the same 1s that appear in the bold-faced column under the left-side sub-major connective & (rows , , and ), plus two more (rows and ). == Gallery ==
Gallery
File:VennDiagram.svg|A Venn diagram showing all possible intersections File:Supranational European Bodies.svg|Euler diagram visualizing a real situation, the relationships between various supranational European organizations (clickable version) File:Euler and Venn diagrams.svg|Humorous diagram comparing Euler and Venn diagrams File:Euler diagram of triangle types.svg|Euler diagram of types of triangles, using the definition that isosceles triangles have at least (rather than exactly) 2 equal sides File:British Isles Euler diagram 15.svg|Euler diagram of terminology of the British Isles File:An Euler diagram of Eulerian circles Showing Different Types of Metaheuristics.jpg|Euler diagram categorizing different types of metaheuristics File:Homograph homophone venn diagram.svg|Euler Diagram displaying the relationship between homographs, homophones, and synonyms File:Venn and Euler diagrams of 3-ary Boolean relations.svg|The 22 (of 256) essentially different Venn diagrams with 3 circles (top) and their corresponding Euler diagrams.(bottom)Some of the Euler diagrams are not typical; some are even equivalent to Venn diagrams. Areas are shaded to indicate that they contain no elements. File:Milne-Edwards diagram.pdf|Henri Milne-Edwards's (1844) diagram of relationships of vertebrate animals, illustrated as a series of nested sets File:Euler diagram numbers with many divisors.svg|Euler diagram of numbers under 100 ==See also==
tickerdossier.comtickerdossier.substack.com