International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams

Diagrams 2014: Diagrammatic Representation and Inference pp 261-276 | Cite as

Logical Investigation of Reasoning with Tables

  • Ryo Takemura
  • Atsushi Shimojima
  • Yasuhiro Katagiri
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8578)


In graphical or diagrammatic representations, not only the basic component of a diagram, but also a collection of multiple components can form a unit with semantic significance. We call such a collection a “global object”, and we consider how this can assist in reasoning using diagrammatic representation. In this paper, we investigate reasoning with correspondence tables as a case study. Correspondence tables are a basic, yet widely applied graphical/diagrammatical representation system. Although there may be various types of global objects in a table, here we concentrate on global objects consisting of rows or columns taken as a whole. We investigate reasoning with tables by exploiting not only local conditions, specifying the values in individual table entries, but also global conditions, which specify constraints on rows and columns in the table. This type of reasoning with tables would typically be employed in a task solving simple scheduling problems, such as assigning workers to work on different days of the week, given global conditions such as the number of people to be assigned to each day, as well as local conditions such as the days of the week on which certain people cannot work. We investigate logical properties of reasoning with tables, and conclude, from the perspective of free ride, that the application of global objects makes such reasoning more efficient.


mathematical logic correspondence table free ride 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barker-Plummer, D., Etchemendy, J.: A computational architecture for heterogeneous reasoning. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 19(3), 195–225 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker-Plummer, D., Swoboda, N.: Reasoning with coincidence grids–A sequent-based logic and an analysis of complexity. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 22(1), 56–65 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barwise, J., Etchemendy, J.: Heterogeneous Logic. In: Allwein, G., Barwise, J. (eds.) Logical Reasoning with Diagrams. Oxford Studies In Logic And Computation Series, pp. 179–200 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barwise, J., Etchemendy, J.: Hyperproof: For Macintosh. The Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1973)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertin, J.: Graphics and Graphic Information. de Gruyter, W., Berlin (1981) (Originally published in France in 1977)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cleveland, W.S.: The Elements of Graphing Data. Hobart Press, Summit (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enderton, H.B.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, 2nd edn. Academic Press (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gilhooly, K.J., Wood, M., Kinnear, P.R., Green, C.: Skill in map reading and memory for maps. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 40A, 87–107 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guthrie, J.T., Weber, S., Kimmerly, N.: Searching Documents: Cognitive Processes and Deficits in Understanding Graphs, Tables, and Illustrations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18, 186–221 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kinnear, P.R., Wood, M.: Memory for topographic contour maps. British Journal of Psychology 78, 395–402 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kosslyn, S.M.: Elements of Graph Design. W. H. Freeman and Company (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinker, S.: A Theory of Graph Comprehension. In: Freedle, R. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, pp. 73–126. L. Erlbaum Associates (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ratwani, R.M., Trafton, J.G., Boehm-Davis, D.A.: Thinking Graphically: Connecting Vision and Cognition During Graph Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14(1), 36–49 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shimojima, A.: On the Efficacy of Representation. Ph.D thesis, Indiana University (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shimojima, A.: Derivative Meaning in Graphical Representations. In: Proceedings of 1999 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp. 212–219 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shimojima, A.: The Inferential-Expressive Trade-Off: A Case Study of Tabular Representations. In: Hegarty, M., Meyer, B., Narayanan, N.H. (eds.) Diagrams 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2317, pp. 116–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takemura, R.: Proof theory for reasoning with Euler diagrams: a Logic Translation and Normalization. Studia Logica 101(1), 157–191 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takemura, R.: A Heterogeneous Logic with Tables. In: Burton, J., Choudhury, L. (eds.) Proceedings of International Workshop on Diagrams, Logic and Cognition (DLAC 2013). CEUR Series, vol. 1132, pp. 9–16 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tufte, E.R.: Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wainer, H.: Understanding Graphs and Tables. Educational Researcher 21, 14–23 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryo Takemura
    • 1
  • Atsushi Shimojima
    • 2
  • Yasuhiro Katagiri
    • 3
  1. 1.Nihon UniveristyJapan
  2. 2.Doshisha UniversityJapan
  3. 3.Future University HakodateJapan

Personalised recommendations