From Euclidean Geometry to Knots and Nets

This document is the Accepted Manuscript of an article accepted for publication in Synthese. Under embargo until 19 September 2018. The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1558-x.This paper assumes the success of arguments against the view that informal mathematical proofs secure rational conviction in virtue of their relations with corresponding formal derivations. This assumption entails a need for an alternative account of the logic of informal mathematical proofs. Following examination of case studies by Manders, De Toffoli and Giardino, Leitgeb, Feferman and others, this paper proposes a framework for analysing those informal proofs that appeal to the perception or modification of diagrams or to the inspection or imaginative manipulation of mental models of mathematical phenomena. Proofs relying on diagrams can be rigorous if (a) it is easy to draw a diagram that shares or otherwise indicates the structure of the mathematical object, (b) the information thus displayed is not metrical and (c) it is possible to put the inferences into systematic mathematical relation with other mathematical inferential practices. Proofs that appeal to mental models can be rigorous if the mental models can be externalised as diagrammatic practice that satisfies these three conditions.Peer reviewe

Generalised Compositional Theories and Diagrammatic Reasoning

This chapter provides an introduction to the use of diagrammatic language, or perhaps more accurately, diagrammatic calculus, in quantum information and quantum foundations. We illustrate the use of diagrammatic calculus in one particular case, namely the study of complementarity and non-locality, two fundamental concepts of quantum theory whose relationship we explore in later part of this chapter. The diagrammatic calculus that we are concerned with here is not merely an illustrative tool, but it has both (i) a conceptual physical backbone, which allows it to act as a foundation for diverse physical theories, and (ii) a genuine mathematical underpinning, permitting one to relate it to standard mathematical structures.Comment: To appear as a Springer book chapter chapter, edited by G. Chirabella, R. Spekken

Diagrammatic Reasoning and Modelling in the Imagination: The Secret Weapons of the Scientific Revolution

Just before the Scientific Revolution, there was a "Mathematical Revolution", heavily based on geometrical and machine diagrams. The "faculty of imagination" (now called scientific visualization) was developed to allow 3D understanding of planetary motion, human anatomy and the workings of machines. 1543 saw the publication of the heavily geometrical work of Copernicus and Vesalius, as well as the first Italian translation of Euclid

What is a logical diagram?

Robert Brandom’s expressivism argues that not all semantic content may be made fully explicit. This view connects in interesting ways with recent movements in philosophy of mathematics and logic (e.g. Brown, Shin, Giaquinto) to take diagrams seriously - as more than a mere “heuristic aid” to proof, but either proofs themselves, or irreducible components of such. However what exactly is a diagram in logic? Does this constitute a semiotic natural kind? The paper will argue that such a natural kind does exist in Charles Peirce’s conception of iconic signs, but that fully understood, logical diagrams involve a structured array of normative reasoning practices, as well as just a “picture on a page”

Reflective Argumentation

Theories of argumentation usually focus on arguments as means of persuasion, finding consensus, or justifying knowledge claims. However, the construction and visualization of arguments can also be used to clarify one's own thinking and to stimulate change of this thinking if gaps, unjustified assumptions, contradictions, or open questions can be identified. This is what I call "reflective argumentation." The objective of this paper is, first, to clarify the conditions of reflective argumentation and, second, to discuss the possibilities of argument visualization methods in supporting reflection and cognitive change. After a discussion of the cognitive problems we are facing in conflicts--obviously the area where cognitive change is hardest--the second part will, based on this, determine a set of requirements argument visualization tools should fulfill if their main purpose is stimulating reflection and cognitive change. In the third part, I will evaluate available argument visualization methods with regard to these requirements and talk about their limitations. The fourth part, then, introduces a new method of argument visualization which I call Logical Argument Mapping (LAM). LAM has specifically been designed to support reflective argumentation. Since it uses primarily deductively valid argument schemes, this design decision has to be justified with regard to goals of reflective argumentation. The fifth part, finally, provides an example of how Logical Argument Mapping could be used as a method of reflective argumentation in a political controversy

Dynamic Euler Diagram Drawing

In this paper we describe a method to lay out a graph enhanced Euler diagram so that it looks similar to a previously drawn graph enhanced Euler diagram. This task is non-trivial when the underlying structures of the diagrams differ. In particular, if a structural change is made to an existing drawn diagram, our work enables the presentation of the new diagram with minor disruption to the user's mental map. As the new diagram can be generated from an abstract representation, its initial embedding may be very different from that of the original. We have developed comparison measures for Euler diagrams, integrated into a multicriteria optimizer, and applied a force model for associated graphs that attempts to move nodes towards their positions in the original layout. To further enhance the usability of the system, the transition between diagrams can be animated

Reasoning with Spider Diagrams

Spider diagrams combine and extend Venn diagrams and Euler circles to express constraints on sets and their relationships with other sets. These diagrams can usefully be used in conjunction with object-oriented modelling notations such as the Unified Modelling Language. This paper summarises the main syntax and semantics of spider diagrams and introduces four inference rules for reasoning with spider diagrams and a rule governing the equivalence of Venn and Euler forms of spider diagrams. This paper also details rules for combining two spider diagrams to produce a single diagram which retains as much of their combined semantic information as possible and discusses disjunctive diagrams as one possible way of enriching the system in order to combine spider diagrams so that no semantic information is lost

Actor-network procedures: Modeling multi-factor authentication, device pairing, social interactions

As computation spreads from computers to networks of computers, and migrates into cyberspace, it ceases to be globally programmable, but it remains programmable indirectly: network computations cannot be controlled, but they can be steered by local constraints on network nodes. The tasks of "programming" global behaviors through local constraints belong to the area of security. The "program particles" that assure that a system of local interactions leads towards some desired global goals are called security protocols. As computation spreads beyond cyberspace, into physical and social spaces, new security tasks and problems arise. As networks are extended by physical sensors and controllers, including the humans, and interlaced with social networks, the engineering concepts and techniques of computer security blend with the social processes of security. These new connectors for computational and social software require a new "discipline of programming" of global behaviors through local constraints. Since the new discipline seems to be emerging from a combination of established models of security protocols with older methods of procedural programming, we use the name procedures for these new connectors, that generalize protocols. In the present paper we propose actor-networks as a formal model of computation in heterogenous networks of computers, humans and their devices; and we introduce Procedure Derivation Logic (PDL) as a framework for reasoning about security in actor-networks. On the way, we survey the guiding ideas of Protocol Derivation Logic (also PDL) that evolved through our work in security in last 10 years. Both formalisms are geared towards graphic reasoning and tool support. We illustrate their workings by analysing a popular form of two-factor authentication, and a multi-channel device pairing procedure, devised for this occasion.Comment: 32 pages, 12 figures, 3 tables; journal submission; extended references, added discussio