Euler Diagrams Through the Looking Glass: From Extent to Intent

  • Gem StapletonEmail author
  • Amirouche Moktefi
  • John Howse
  • Jim Burton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10871)


Extension and intension are two ways of indicating the fundamental meaning of a concept. The extent of a concept, C, is the set of objects which correspond to C whereas the intent of C is the collection of attributes that characterise it. Thus, intension defines the set of objects corresponding to C without naming them individually. Mathematicians switch comfortably between these perspectives but the majority of logical diagrams deal exclusively in extension. Euler diagrams indicate sets using curves to depict their extent in a way that intuitively matches the relations between the sets. What happens when we use spatial diagrams to depict intension? What can we infer about the intension of a concept given its extension, and vice versa? We present the first steps towards addressing these questions by defining extensional and intensional Euler diagrams and translations between the two perspectives. We show that translation in either direction leads to a loss of information, yet preserves important semantic properties. To conclude, we explain how we expect further exploration of the relationship between the two perspectives could shed light on connections between diagrams, extension, intension, and well-matchedness.


  1. 1.
    Bassler, O.B.: Leibniz on intension, extension, and the representation of syllogistic inference. Synthese 2(116), 117–139 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Couturat, L.: La Logique de Leibniz. Félix Alcan, Metz (1901)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dipert, R.R.: Individuals and extensional logic in schroder’s ‘vorlesungen uber die algebra der logik’. Mod. Log. 2–3(1), 140–159 (1991)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitting, M.: Intensional logic (2015). Accessed Dec 2017
  5. 5.
    Hurley, P.J.: A Concise Introduction to Logic, 12th edn. Cengage Learning, Stamford (2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lewis, C.I.: A Survey of Symbolic Logic. University of California Press, Berkeley (1918)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moktefi, A.: Is Euler’s circle a symbol or an icon? Sign Syst. Stud. 43(4), 597+ (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moktefi, A., Pietarinen, A.V.: On the diagrammatic representation of existential statements with Venn diagrams. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 24(4), 361–374 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shearman, A.T.: The Development of Symbolic Logic. Williams and Norgate, London (1906)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shin, S.J.: The Logical Status of Diagrams. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stapleton, G.: Delivering the potential of diagrammatic logics. In: International Workshop on Diagrams, Logic and Cognition, vol. 1132, pp. 1–8. CEUR (2013).
  12. 12.
    Venn, J.: On the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of propositions and reasonings. Philos. Mag. 10, 1–18 (1880)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venn, J.: Symbolic Logic. Macmillan, Basingstoke (1894)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Secure, Intelligent and Usable SystemsUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK
  2. 2.Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations