Abstract
Modern logic has been provided since its very inception in 1879 with a diagrammatic outlook: Frege’s two-dimensional symbolism in his Begriffsschrift. This was supposed to surpass specific limitations both of natural and of other constructed languages. However, it did not receive the attention paid to Frege’s purely logical innovations. This fact was partly due to the common opinion, informed by logicians like Venn, Schröder and Peano, and heavily influenced by Russell’s overstatement that the symbolism was ’unfortunately so cumbrous as to be very difficult to employ in practice’ [1]. This was rather ironic, I believe, as Frege devised it exactly for the purpose of assisting our inferential practice: ’its chief purpose should be to test in the most reliable manner the validity of a chain of reasoning’ [2]. The main thrust of my paper is to show that a particular point raised by Schröder – that Frege’s conceptual notation fails to be modelled on the formula language of arithmetic – is based on a misunderstanding. I will describe then what it seems to me the most advantageous aspect of Frege’s diagrams, and give a serious reason for their eventual cast-off. But first let’s look at some of them.
Frege’s diagrams have been only recently noted as an endeavor to logically reason with diagrams (e.g., in [3]), but no analysis has yet been offered. The present paper is motivated by this state of affairs. I am very grateful to Patricia Blanchette for her comments and suggestions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Russell, B.: Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1903)
Frege, G.: Conceptual Notation. A Formula Language of Pure Thought Modelled upon the Formula Language of Arithmetic. In: [8], pp. 101–203 (1879)
Shin, S.-J., Oliver, L.: Diagrams. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2002)
Frege, G.: On the Scientific Justification ofa Conceptual Notation. In: [8], pp. 83–89 (1882)
Beaney, M.: Frege’s Logical Notation. In: Beaney, M. (ed.) The Frege Reader, pp. 376–385. Blackwell, Malden (1997)
Vilkko, R.: The Reception of Frege’s Begriffsschrift. Historia Mathematica 25, 412–422 (1998)
Schroder, E.: Review of Frege’s Conceptual Notation. In: [8], pp. 218–232 (1880)
Frege, G.: Conceptual Notation, and Related Articles, tr. and ed. by T. W. Bynum. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1972)
Shimojina, 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)
Bynum, T.W.: On the Life and Work of Gottlob Frege. In: [8], pp. 1–54 (1972)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Toader, I.D. (2004). On Frege’s Logical Diagrams. In: Blackwell, A.F., Marriott, K., Shimojima, A. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2980. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25931-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25931-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-21268-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-25931-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive