Talk:Syllogisms
Add topicSimplified Venn Diagrams For Syllogisms
[edit source]- I copied this strange discussion from my talk page on Commons. Maybe someone can find wisdom in this. Watchduck (quack) 01:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Dear Watchduck,
the three-circle Venn diagrams for the Syllogisms are much too complicated (absurdly so), IMHO. Apparently, these are traditional? They appear on the Syllogism pages in many languages. Maybe all are copying from the same source? I am a retired maths prof and would NEVER use the onnes shown now in one of my classes. I would like to submit to you for inclusion or replacement some examples of vastly simpler Venn diagrams, which I hope you would like and prefer. They are now in crude form using only keyboard characters, but of course could be converted easily using professional graphics software into a style similar to the current three-circle style. How can I send you my examples? Wikipedia has my email, as a registered user/ occasional editor. Skeptiker (discuss) 00:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Skeptiker,
- first of all I want to clarify, that I will not overwrite these graphics. There is nothing wrong with having different images representing the same thing. So I would suggest that you just upload your set of images, and put it in a category parallel to Syllogism charts with all Venn diagrams (but not in the same one). Ideally you first create vector versions with a software like Inkscape. But you could upload your raster graphics. If the content is great, someone else will make vector versions. I hope you have representations of all 24 syllogisms. Do your representations also work as proofs? Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 07:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Duck,
- Thanks for your quick reply. Being 82 years old, and otherwise busy writing a paper in scientific philosophy that explains where in the brain all of Kant's philosophy can be found, I am not enthusiastic about following your DIY suggestions. What would be so terribly difficult about emailing you my samples, about six or eight so far, which I did as work-therapy. I managed to carelessly ruin them yesterday, but could fwd to you an email to my son, also a mathematician, which had about four of them. -- Yes, my Venn diagrams are proofs, visually speaking, which does not quite go with modern axiomatic maths idea of what a proof is. -- Okay, I will put down Barbara, Celarent and Felapton (I also did Ferio, Darii & Baroco; the diagram for Fesapo is identically the same as for Felapton) by cut-and-paste from the email to my son & you can take it from there, they are very easy to do. The predicates S, M, P are denoted by boxes with characteristic borders, as follows:
……………
S = / \
\_____/
……………
M = | |
|____|
…………
P = { }
{____}
(The paste did not work very well, repairs seem okay though:)
.svg)
Barbara
all M is P; all S is M: all S is P
M:Men S:Greeks P:mortal
All men are mortal. (MaP)
All Greeks are men. (SaM)
∴ All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)
………………………………………………………
{ mortals }
{ ………………………………… }
{ | men | }
{ | ……………… | }
{ | / Greeks\ | }
{ | \_______/ | }
{ |____________| }
{____________________}
- - - - -
.svg)
Celarent
no M is P; all S is M: no S is P
M:reptiles S:Snakes P:fur
No reptiles have fur. (MeP)
All snakes are reptiles. (SaM)
∴ No snakes have fur. (SeP)
……………………………
| | …………………
| ……………… | { } fur
| /snakes\ | {_______}
| \______/ |
|___________|
reptiles
- - - - -
.svg)
Felapton
no M is P; all M is S: some S is not P
M:flower S:plant P:animal
No flowers are animals. (MeP)
All flowers are plants. (MaS)
∴ Some plants are not animals. (SoP)
………………………………… plants
/ ………………… \
/ | | ……\………………………
/ | ($) | { ? \ }
\ |flowers| {___/________}
\ |_______| / animals
\____________/
The symbol ($) means that set S of flowers is not empty, there is stuff in it (flowers) . .!!
Skeptiker (discuss) 16:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- So basically you want to use Euler diagrams instead of Venn diagrams.
- Someone has already made graphics like that: Syllogism charts with all Euler diagrams (PNGs)
- They are used in the Japanese article: w:ja:三段論法
- I don't like that Barbara and Barbari look the same. How would you distinguish them?
- Anyway, I don't think that Euler diagrams are better, and I think adding separate diagrams for premises and conclusion adds extra clarity. Watchduck (quack) 16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Watch,
- Euler diagrams?? He was one clever guy, published more papers than I any other mathematician, living or dead, I've heard.
- I think you misspoke in the last reference to "Euler"diagrams. You sound defensive, which is okay, but not necessary.
- So basically want the utter simplicity of the syllogisms to be apparent, and if two syllogisms are identical, fine ..!!
- Your (?) three-circle diagrams are unintelligible except after long and careful study, not the idea of an encyclopedic article, I would say
- I will take a look at the Jap site, thanks.
- Did fix up my Ferio, Darii and Baroco Venn diagrams, here they are:
- - - - -
.svg)
Ferio
no M is P; some S is M: some S is not P
M:homework S:reading P:fun
No homework is fun. (MeP)
Some reading is homework. (SiM)
∴ Some reading is not fun. (SoP)
…………………………………………
| |
……|…………………………………………|…………………………………………………… reading
/ | | \
/ | ($) | ……………………………………………\………………………………
/ | | { \ }
\ | | { ? / }
\ | | { / }
\ | | { ______________/_____________}
\_|_________________|____________________/ fun
|________________|
homework
- - - - -
.svg)
Darii
all M is P; some S is M: some S is P
M:rabbit S:pet P:fur
All rabbits have fur. (MaP)
Some pets are rabbits. (SiM)
∴ Some pets have fur. (SiP)
……………………………………………………………………………………
{ } fur
{ ……………………………………………………… }
{ | rabbit | }
{ | ………………………|……………}……………………………
{ | / ($) | } ? \
{ | \__________|_____}___________/
{ |______________________| } pet
{________________________________}
- - - - -
.svg)
Baroco
all P is M; some S is not M: some S is not P
M:useful S:website P:informative
All informative things are useful. (PaM)
Some websites are not useful. (SoM)
∴ Some websites are not informative. (SoP)
………………………………………………………………………………………
| …………………………………………………… |
| { informative } |
| { …………………………………………}…………………|………………………………
| { / } | \
| { / ? } | ($) \
| { \ } | /
| { \________________}_______|____________/
| {_____________________} | website
|_________________________________|
useful
Skeptiker (discuss) 17:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Watchman Duck, looked at Jap page, those diagrams far less clear than mine. Skeptiker (discuss) 17:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
WatchDuck, let me explain difference of Euler diagrams from Skeptiker diagrams. My trick is to use contrasting borders for S, M, P predicates. Also, add labels like pet, fur, rabbit, etc. This way I don't need extra diagrams for premises & conclusions like the Jap page does. Basically, my diagrams exhibit the utter triviality of syllogisms in our times as opposed to the days of Aristotle, who was a true mental giant, ahead of his times by two millennia, although lacking science. E.g., he thought that leaves on dicot plants serve to shade the fruit, and that the brain's purpose was to cool the blood, aided by the numerous folds, as raditator grills. He seems to have thought like an engineer . .!! The medieval scholastics being idle monks needed something to do, not having computer games available to them, yet. Skeptiker (discuss) 19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the difference between your diagrams and those on the Japanese page. I have created what I consider improved versions of the Japanese diagrams, which I have included next to your ASCII diagrams. Watchduck (quack) 00:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Let's not lose sight of the main point: My diagrams are vastly simpler than the three circle diagrams now on the article page. You could put my diagrams on article page. They still are superior to the Jap style, as follows: -- Yes, you adopted one of my tricks without giving me credit, marking a boldface 'x' for my ($), and thereby you did improve the Jap diagrams. And I have two more tricks, (1.) the shape of the borders instead of colors which stands out more, and (2.) using example predicates as labels, which are completely missing on the Nippon page and in your "improved" version. Diagrams for premises and conclusions are implied by the full diagram. Adding them separately only serves to clutter up the picture, adds a false appearance of sophistication and obscures the triviality of syllogistic logic in the 21st century. Skeptiker (discuss) 02:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's even worse: I usurped your trick five years before you revealed it to me - and no one knows how I did it.
- I prefer leaving the choice of an example to the person who eventually uses the diagram.
- Creating a false appearance of sophistication is pretty much all I do here.
- You are still free to download Inkscape and DIY. Watchduck (quack) 08:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not young enough to learn Inkscape and DIY. Working on my philosophy paper which is in bad shape. At 82 need all my remaining life-force to complete that job. Changed "usurp" to "adopt" above. Still, in my now humbler opinion, the Wikipedia articles should strive to avoid such absurdly and needlessly complicated material as the existing three-circle diagrams, as was my main point originally. Adding example, including labels in diagram, plus dropping separate diagrams for premises & conclusion (to unclutter page), all would help people to comprehend the utter simplicity of three logical inferences flowing from the three predicates in each syllogism. We should simplify learning for the benefit of students. True, "knowledge is power," but power corrupts, and Wikipedia has acquired absolute power. Skeptiker (discuss) 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I did what makes sense to me, and don't intend to do what makes sense to you. So I consider this discussion closed.
- But I would like to share this cat image with you. This is the internet after all. Watchduck (quack) 19:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are certainly free to join the great unteachables. Just to mention: The example syllogisms in my diagrams are from the English-language page about syllogisms. Skeptiker (discuss) 16:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Watchduck, trying to catch your attention, feel free to erase.
I thought you might like to have a look at the English-language "Syllogism" talk-page. Today I added carefully chosen examples for use in simplified diagrams in eleven (11) "reduced" syllogisms. Here the reduction is by (1.) dropping weak syllogisms; (2.) declaring equivalent any two syllogisms which differ only by an interchange of AiB & BiA, or AeB & BeA.
Thus we now do not need to learn 24 but only 11 syllogisms. Skeptiker (discuss) 15:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please add only to the end, and don't make changes to anything that is before someone elses answer.
- So you made more ASCII art. Why not - it's your life time.
- 11 is also the number of columns in my table of Venn diagrams (if you count columns not separated by a border as one). Watchduck (quack) 16:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
.svg#All_Syllogisms){kind=link}
- You got it, was trying to get you to respond, which you did. -- Latest count: Es giebt nur sieben (7) wesentlich verschiedene Syllogismen:
* * * Barbara, Darii, Felapton, Ferio, Celarent, Bocardo, Baroco * * *
Bitte englische Wikipedia "talk-page" wegen Update einsehen. Es geht mir aber wirklich nicht um Zeitvertreib, sondern um Klarstellung der grundsätzlichen Einfachheit der Syllogismen-Theorie (für uns heute). Und eineme 82 Jahre alten Greis solltest Du es nicht übelnehmen. Natürlich verstehe ich Deinen berechtigten Stolz auf Deine preiswürdige Grafiken, nur hast Du diese hier glaube ich falsch angebracht. Eine einfache Sache sollte man nicht künstlich (von Kunst ..!!) schwierig machen. Skeptiker (discuss) 05:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Seufz. Es ist wirklich nicht schwierig in Inkscape ein paar Kreise und Beschriftungen zu machen, und es gibt auf Youtube jedem Menge Videos wie man das macht. Das sollte schneller gehen als deine ASCII-Diagramme. Ich würde dir empfehlen eine Wikiversity-Seite zu machen - vielleicht v:Syllogisms simplified. (v:Syllogisms habe ich mal gemacht.) Wenn du es ordentlich präsentierst (ohne ASCII-Art) und verständlich schreibst, dann liest es vielleicht auch mal jemand. Ich finde es nicht besonders spannend, und ich glaube auch nicht, dass es besonders viele Leute gibt, die sich dafür interessieren, auf wie viele "wesentlich verschiedene" man die Anzahl der Syllogismen herunterbringen kann. Es ist ja nicht so, als müsste die Dinger heute noch jemand auswändig lernen. Viel Spaß dabei, aber lass mich da raus. Ich glaube die Arbeit über Kant war die bessere Idee. Watchduck (quack) 20:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Traurig, daß Du auf den Hauptpunkt gar nicht eingehst: Deine Diagramme machen eine einfache Sache auf absurde Weise kompliziert. Und jetzt hast Du, durch Einsetzen (unter meinem Einfluss) der japanischen Kreise in Deine elf Spalten, das Bild noch mehr verunstaltet. Als Graphiker fehlt Dir jedes Verständnis dafür, was eine gute Darstellung ausmacht. -- Die Diagramme sind mir leichte Geistesübung, Seelengymnastik, work therapy, um zu verstehen, was für Aristoteles wesentlich war. -- Der Kant Aufsatz wird geschrieben, aber der berühmte Philosoph ist jetzt nicht mehr Mittelpunkt, sondern wie das neuverstandene Gehirn unsere Welt verständlich zu machen versucht. Skeptiker (discuss) 01:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)