Abstract
Understanding diagrams and using them in problem solving requires extensive knowledge about the properties of diagrams, what diagram elements denote, how their parts are distinguished and referenced, how they relate to linguistic statements, and so forth . This knowledge is most naturally represented linguistically. Nonetheless, diagrams or imaginal representations of them are used in substantive non-linguistic ways as part of the problem-solving process. The interaction of linguistic and diagrammatic representations must be understood in order to construct a theory of diagrammatic reasoning. In this chapter, an example is examined to illustrate some of the ways in which diagram manipulation may be used in geometric reasoning and to identify informally some of the knowledge necessary for such reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Anderson, M. and McCartney, R. (1995). Inter-diagrammatic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 1. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 878–884.
Anderson, M. and McCartney, R. (1996). Diagrammatic reasoning and cases. In Proceedings of the thirteenth national conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 2. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 1004–1009.
Barker-Plummer, D. and Bailin, S.C. (1992). Proofs and pictures: Proving the diamond lemma with the GROVER theorem proving system. In Reasoning with diagrammatic representations. Technical report SS-92–02. Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 102–107.
Chou, S.-C. (1988). Mechanical geometry theorem proving. Dordrecht:Reidel.
Fogiel, M. (Ed.) (1994). The high school geometry tutor. (2nd edn.) Piscatawa, NJ: Research and Education Association.
Fumas, G.W. (1992). Reasoning with diagrams only. In Reasoning with diagrammatic representations. Technical report SS-92–02. Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 118–123.
Gelernter, H. (1959). A note on syntactic symmetry and the manipulation of formal systems by machine. Information and Control 2:80–89.
Kramer, G.A. (1992). Solving geometric constraint systems: A case study in kinematics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lindsay, R.K. (1996). Generalizing from diagrams. In Cognitive and computational models of spatial reasoning. Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 51–55.
Lindsay, R.K. (1998). Using diagrams to understand geometry. Computational Intelligence 14:228–256.
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1984). Computation and cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schank, R. and Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shin, S.-J. (1995). The logical status of diagrams. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, D. (1995). Studies on the formal semantics of pictures. Ph.D. dissertation, Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation, University of Amsterdam.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lindsay, R.K. (2002). Knowing About Diagrams. In: Anderson, M., Meyer, B., Olivier, P. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0109-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0109-3_2
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-242-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0109-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive