Advertisement

Toward Computing Oriented Representation of Sets

  • Sabah Al-FedaghiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 464)

Abstract

Diagrams probably rank among the oldest forms of human communication. Traditional logic diagrams (e.g., Venn diagrams, Euler diagrams, Peirce existential diagrams) have been utilized as conceptual representations, and it is claimed that these diagrammatic representations, in general, have advantages over linguistic ones. Nevertheless, current representations are not satisfactory. Diagrams of logic problems incompletely depict their underlying semantics and fail to provide a clear, basic, static structure with elementary dynamic features, creating a conceptual gap that sometimes causes misinterpretation. This paper proposes a conceptual apparatus to represent mathematical structure, and, without loss of generality, it focuses on sets. Set theory is described as one of the greatest achievements of modern mathematics. Nevertheless, its metaphysical interpretations raise paradoxes, and the notion of a collection, in terms of which sets are defined, is inconsistent. Accordingly, exploring a new view, albeit tentative, attuned to basic notions such as the definition of set is justifiable. This paper aims at providing an alternative graphical representation of a set as a machine with five basic “operations”: releasing, transferring, receiving, processing, and creating of things. Here, a depiction of sets is presented, as in the case of Venn-like diagrams, and is not intended to be a set theory contribution. The paper employs schematization as an apparatus of descriptive specification, and the resultant high-level description seems a viable tool for enhancing the relationship between set theory and computer science.

Keywords

Conceptual model Set theory Diagrams Abstract machine Flow Specification 

References

  1. 1.
    Shin, S.-J., Lemon, O., Mumma, J.: Diagrams. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter edn. (2014). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/diagrams/
  2. 2.
    Allwein, G., Barwise, J. (eds.): Logical Reasoning with Diagrams. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shimojima, A.: The graphic linguistic distinction. Artif. Intell. Rev. 13, 313–335 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stenning, K.: Distinctions with differences: comparing criteria for distinguishing diagrammatic from sentential systems. In: Diagrams 2000, M. Anderson, P. Cheng, and V. Haarslev, Eds. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1889, pp. 132–148, 2000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gurr, C., Lee, J., Stenning, K.: Theories of diagrammatic reasoning: distinguishing component problems. Minds Mach. 8, 533–557 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krämer, S.: Epistemology of the line. Reflections on the diagrammatical mind. In: Gerner, A., Pombo, O. (eds.) Studies in Diagrammatology and Diagram Praxis, pp. 13–38. College Publications, London (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arnheim, R.: Visual Thinking. University of California Press, Berkeley (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barr, A., Feigenbaum, E.A.: The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 200–206. William Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sloman, A.: Interactions between philosophy and AI: the role of intuition and non-logical reasoning in intelligence. Artif. Intell. 2, 209–225 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sloman, A.: Afterthoughts on analogical representations. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (TINLAP-1), Cambridge, MA, pp. 164–168 (1975)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shin, S.-J.: The Logical Status of Diagrams. University Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Set theory. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/
  13. 13.
    The early development of set theory. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/settheory-early/
  14. 14.
    Brown, R.G.: Naive Set versus Axiomatic Set Theories, 17 Dec 2007. https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node15.html
  15. 15.
    Weaver, N.: The Concept of a Set (2009). arXiv:0905.1677 [math.HO]
  16. 16.
    Slater, B.H.: Grammar and sets. Australas. J. Philos. 84, 59–73 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Fedaghi, S.: Personal information flow model for P3P. In: W3C Workshop on Languages for Privacy Policy Negotiation and Semantics-Driven Enforcement, Ispra, Italy, 17–18 Oct (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Al-Fedaghi, S.: Crossing privacy, information, and ethics. In: Khosrow-Pour, M. (ed.) Emerging Trends and Challenges in Information Technology Management, 17th International Conference, Information Resources Management Association (IRMA 2006), Washington, DC, USA, 21–24 May 2006. IGI, Hershey, PA (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Al-Fedaghi, S.: Schematizing proofs based on flow of truth values in logic. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (IEEE SMC 2013), 13–16 Oct, Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Al-Fedaghi, S.: Flow-based enterprise process modeling. Int. J. Database Theor. Appl. 6(3), 59–70 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rheinberger, H.-J.: Toward a History Of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosen, K.H.: Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 7th edn. (2011). ISBN: 0073383090Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Engineering DepartmentKuwait UniversitySafatKuwait

Personalised recommendations