A New Algorithmic Decision for Categorical Syllogisms
via Carroll’s Diagrams
Arif Gursoya , Ibrahim Senturka , Tahsin Onera,∗

arXiv:1802.04127v3 [cs.AI] 7 Mar 2018

a Department

of Mathematics, Ege University, Izmir, 35100, Turkey

Abstract
In this paper, we deal with a calculus system SLCD (Syllogistic Logic with
Carroll Diagrams), which gives a formal approach to logical reasoning with diagrams, for representations of the fundamental Aristotelian categorical propositions and show that they are closed under the syllogistic criterion of inference
which is the deletion of middle term. Therefore, it is implemented to let the
formalism comprise synchronically bilateral and trilateral diagrammatical appearance and a naive algorithmic nature. And also, there is no need specific
knowledge or exclusive ability to understand as well as to use it. Consequently,
we give an effective algorithm used to determine whether a syllogistic reasoning
valid or not by using SLCD.
Keywords: categorical syllogism, validity, algorithm
2010 MSC: 68Q60, 03B70, 68T27

1. Introduction
The first idea on syllogisms was produced in the field of proper thinking by the
Greek philosopher Aristotle. His idea mainly said that in his Prior Analytics:
“syllogism is discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other
than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so. I mean by the last
phrase that they produce the consequence, and by this, that no further term is
∗ Corresponding

author
Email addresses: arif.gursoy@ege.edu.tr (Arif Gursoy), ibrahim.senturk@ege.edu.tr
(Ibrahim Senturk), tahsin.oner@ege.edu.tr (Tahsin Oner)

Preprint submitted to Journal of LATEX Templates

March 8, 2018

required from without in order to make the consequence necessary”[1].
A syllogism is a formal logical pattern to obtain a conclusion from the set of
premises. A categorical syllogism can be defined as a logical consequence which
made up three categorical propositions. It consists of three propositions which
are said to be statements or sentences called major premise, minor premise and
conclusion, respectively. Each of them has a quantified relationship between
two objects. The position of objects in premises generate a classification called
as syllogistic figures. So, there are 4 different types figures. And, the combination of quantifiers ordering deduces 64 different combinations in each figure.
Therefore, a categorical syllogistic system consists of 256 syllogistic moods, 15
of which are unconditionally and 9 of them are conditionally; in total 24 of
them are valid. Those syllogisms in the conditional group are also said to be
strengthened, or valid under existential import, which is an explicit assumption
of existence of some S, M or P. Then we add a rule to SLCD: Some X is X
when X exists and consequently, we obtain the formal system SLCD† .
Throughout the centuries, categorical syllogistic system was a paramount
part of logic. Innovations in the scope of mathematical logic in the 19th and
the beginning of 20th centuries, the situation is changed. However, when J.
Lukasiewicz introduced syllogistic as an axiomatic system built on classical
propositional calculus [2], the situation became reversed once again. Thereby,
categorical syllogistic system plays an important role in the mainstream of contemporary formal logic. Furthermore, Lukasiewicz axiomatization on syllogisms
is still open and new ideas rise from time to time. In recent years, the using
of syllogisms is studied extensively and investigated under different treatments
such as computer science [3, 4]; engineering [5, 6]; artificial intelligence [7], [8];
etc. And also, computer science oriented logicians began to take part in [9].
Using of diagrams in formal logic reasoning has created a spate of interest
for years by the reason of needing to visualize complex logic problems that are
difficult to understand. For example, at the end of the 1800s, Lewis Carroll
used an original diagrammatic scheme to visualize categorical syllogisms in his
book [10]. On the contrary using venn diagrams, he used literal diagrams to
2

solve categorical syllogistic problems containing 2-terms, 3-terms and so on.
Moreover, using of diagrams in computer systems is a significant topic today
because it has potential in offering systems which are more clear and flexible
to perform. A common problem of various systems nowadays is that they are
complicated which are hard to understand and use. So, we need to use diagrams
or other graphical representations to develop more effective and efficient problem
solving [11]. On the contrary the applications of diagrammatic resoning in the
cognitive sciences seek a solution how to support learners in complex tasks
typically with paper-based or more “static” diagrams [12, 13], the applications
more typically include how to program a computer to carry out these tasks in
artificial intelligence [14]. Besides, there are also some related works with the
using diagrams of syllogisms in different areas such as [15, 16, 17, 18].
In this paper, we show how the categorical syllogistic statements are expressed using this Carroll literal diagrams. Then, we give a new algorithm
deciding whether the syllogism and a strengthened syllogism are valid or not by
the help of a calculus system SLCD and SLCD† , respectively.

2. Preliminaries
In this section, we sketch out notations and terminology which are used
during this manuscript.
A categorical syllogism can be defined as a deductive argument consisting
of two logical propositions and a conclusion obtained from these propositions.
They contain exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly two of the
constituent propositions and the conclusion, where the propositions and the
conclusion each has a quantified relationship between two terms. The objects
in a categorical proposition are related with following four distinct forms as in
Table 1.
For any syllogism, the categorical propositions are composed of three terms,
a subject term, a predicate term, and a middle term: the subject term is the
subject of the conclusion and denoted by S; the predicate term modifies the

3

Table 1: Categorical Syllogistic Propositions

Symbol

Statements

Generic Term

A

All X are Y

Universal Affirmative

E

No X are Y

Universal Negative

I

Some X are Y

Particular Affirmative

O

Some X are not Y

Particular Negative

subject in the conclusion and denoted by P , and the middle term which occurs
in the two premises and links the subject and predicate terms and noted by M .
The subject and predicate terms occur in different premises but the middle term
occurs once in each premise. The premise which consists of the predicate term
and the middle term is called the major premise; the premise which consists of
subject term and the middle term is called the minor premise.
Categorical syllogisms are grouped into 4 different ways, which are traditionally called figures, depending on the position of the term-variables S, P and
M in Table 2.
Table 2: Categorical Syllogistic Figures

Major

Minor

Conclusion

Figure

M −P

S−M

S−P

1

P −M

S−M

S−P

2

M −P

M −S

S−P

3

P −M

M −S

S−P

4

Aristotle identified only the first three figures, but the last one was discovered
in the middle ages. He searched each mood and figure in terms of whether it was
valid or not. After, he obtained some common properties of these syllogisms,
which are called rules of deduction. These rules are as follows:
Step 1: Relating to premises irrespective of conclusion or figure:
(a) No inference can be made from two particular premises.

4

(b) No inference can be made from two negative premises.
Step 2: Relating to propositions irrespective of figure:
(a) If one premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular.
(b) If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
Step 3: Relating to distribution of terms:
(a) The middle term must be distributed at least once.
(b) A predicate distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the major
premise.
(c) A subject distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the minor
premise.
In categorical syllogistic system, there are 64 different syllogistic forms for
each figure. These are called moods. Therefore, the categorical syllogistic system is composed of 256 possible syllogisms. Only 24 of them are valid in this
system. And they divided into two groups of 15 and of 9.

The syllogisms in the first group are valid unconditionally which are given
in Table 3.
Table 3: Unconditionally Valid Forms

Figure I

Figure II

Figure III

Figure IV

AAA

EAE

IAI

AEE

EAE

AEE

AII

IAI

AII

EIO

OAO

EIO

EIO

AOO

EIO

The syllogisms in the second group called strengthened syllogism are valid
conditionally or valid existential import ,which is an explicit supposition of being
of some terms, are shown in Table 4.
5

Table 4: Conditionally Valid Forms

Figure I

Figure II

AAI

AAO

EAO

EAO

Figure III

Figure IV

Necessary Condition

AEO

S exists
S exists

AAI

EAO

EIO

M exists
M exists

AAI

P exists

3. Representation of Categorical Syllogisms via Carroll’s Diagrams
and a Calculus System SLCD
Carroll’s diagrams, thought up in 1884, are Venn-type diagrams where the
universes are represented with a square. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether
Carroll studied his diagrams independently or as a modification of John Venn’s.
Carroll’s scheme looks like a productive method summing up several developments that have been introduced by researchers studying in this area.
For categorical syllogistic system, we describe an homomorphic mapping between the categorical syllogistic propositions and the Carroll’s diagrams. Let X
and Y be two terms and let X 0 and Y 0 be complements of X and Y , respectively.
For two-terms, Carroll divides the square into four cells, by this means he gets
the so-called bilateral diagram, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Relation of Two Terms

X0

X

Y0

X 0Y 0

XY 0

Y

X 0Y

XY

Each of these four cells can have three possibilities, when we explain the
relations between two terms. They can be 0 or 1 or blank. In this method, 0
means that there is no element intersection cell of two elements, 1 means that

6

it is not empty and blank cell means that we don’t have any idea about the
content of the cell, it could be 0 or 1.
As above method, let X, Y , and M be three terms and X 0 , Y 0 , and M 0 be
complements of X, Y , and M , respectively. For examining all relations between
three terms, he added one more square in the middle of bilateral diagram which
is called the trilateral diagram, as in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Relations of three terms

Each cell in a trilateral diagram is marked with a 0, if there is no element
and is marked with a I if it is not empty and another using of I, it could be on
the line where the two cell is intersection, this means that at least one of these
cells is not empty. So, I is different from 1. In addition to these, if any cell is
blank, it has two possibilities, 0 or I.
To obtain the conclusion of a syllogism, the knowledge of two premises are
carried out on a trilateral diagram. This presentation is more useful for the
elimination method than the Venn diagram view. In this way, one can observe
the conclusion of the premises truer and quicker from a trilateral diagram. By
dint of this method, we demean the data from a trilateral diagram to a bilateral
diagram, involving only two terms that should occur in the conclusion and
consequently eliminating the middle term.
This method can be used in accordance with the rules below [10]:
First Rule: 0 and I are fixed up on trilateral diagrams.
Second Rule: If the quarter of the trilateral diagram contains a “I” in either
cell, then it is certainly occupied, and one may mark the corresponding quarter

7

of the bilateral diagram with a “1” to indicate that it is occupied.
Third Rule: If the quarter of the trilateral diagram contains two “0”s, one
in each cell, then it is certainly empty, and one may mark the corresponding
quarter of the bilateral diagram with a “0” to indicate that it is empty.
We obtain the required conclusion of a syllogism by using of these rules.
The effect of Carroll’s method of transfer, unknown to Venn, could not be
underestimated. It only shows how to extract the conclusion from the premises
of a syllogism [19].
Now, we give the set theoretical representation of syllogistic arguments by
means of bilateral diagrams. To build such a model, we draw from Carroll’s
diagrammatic method. We give a definition of a map which corresponds each
bilateral diagram to a set. Eventually, our main purpose is to construct a
complete bridge between sets and categorical syllogisms such as Table 6.
Table 6: The Paradigm for the representation of syllogistic arguments by using sets

LOGIC
PREMISES

DIAGRAMS
T ranslate

−−−−−−→

Propositions

SETS
Sets
↓

CONCLUSIONS

T ranslate

←−−−−−−

Propositions

Sets

Let X and Y be two terms and their complements are denoted by X 0 and
Y 0 , respectively. Assume that pi shows a possible form of any bilateral diagram,
such that 1 ≤ i ≤ k, where k is the number of possible forms of bilateral diagram,
as in Table 7.
Table 7: Bilateral diagram for a quantity relation between X and Y

pi

X0

X

Y0

n1

n2

Y

n3

n4

where n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 ∈ {0, 1}. During this paper, R(A) , R(E) , R(I) and R(O)
correspond “All”, “N o”, “Some”and “Some − not”statements, respectively.
8

Example 3.1. We analyze “No X are Y” statement means that there is no
element in the intersection cell of X and Y . We show it in the following bilateral
diagram as in Table 8. From Table 8, we obtain all possible bilateral diagrams
which have 0 in the intersection cell of X and Y . So, Table 9 shows all possible
forms of “No X are Y”.

Table 8: Bilateral diagram for “N o X are Y ”

X0

X

R(A) = Y 0
Y

0

Table 9: All possible forms of “All X are Y ”

X

p2

X0

X

p3

X0

X

p4

X0

X

0

0

Y0

0

0

Y0

0

1

Y0

1

0

Y

0

0

Y

1

0

Y

0

0

Y

0

0

p5

X0

X

p6

X0

X

p7

X0

X

p8

X0

X

Y0

0

1

Y0

1

0

Y0

1

1

Y0

1

1

Y

1

0

Y

1

0

Y

0

0

Y

1

0

p1

X

Y0

0

Now in order to define a relation between bilateral diagrams and sets, let us
form a set consisting of numbers which correspond to possible forms that each
bilateral diagram possesses. For this aim, we firstly define a value mapping in
which each possible bilateral diagram corresponds to exactly one value.
Definition 3.1. [20] Let pi be a possible bilateral diagram and ni be the value
that the i-th cell possesses. The rjval corresponds to the value of pi which is
calculated by using the formula
rjval =

4
X

2(4−i) ni ,

i=1

where k is the number of all possible forms.
9

1 ≤ j ≤ k,

Definition 3.2. Let Rset be the set of the values which correspond to all possible
forms of any bilateral diagram; that is Rset = {rjval : 1 ≤ j ≤ k, k is the number
of all possible forms}. The set of all these Rset ’s is denoted by RSet .
Corollary 3.1. We obtain the set representations of all categorical propositions
as follows:
- All X are Y: It means that X intersection with Y 0 cell is empty set. We
can illustrate this statement as Table 10.
Table 10: X intersection with Y 0 is empty set

X0
R(A) = Y 0

X
0

Y

From Table 10, we obtain all possible forms as the same method in Example
3.1. By the help of Definition 3.1, the set representation of “All X are Y”
set
corresponds to the R(A)
= {0, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11}.

- No X are Y:There is no element in the intersection cell of X and Y as
Table 11.
Table 11: X intersection with Y is empty set

X0
R(E) = Y

X

0

Y

0

By Example 3.1, we have all possible forms of “No X are Y”. Then, we
set
= {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14}.
obtain R(E)

10

- Some X are Y: There is at least one element in the intersection X and Y
as Table 12.
Table 12: X intersection Y has at least one element

X0

X

R(I) = Y 0
Y

1

set
By using the possible bilateral diagrams of R(I) , we have R(I)
= {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15}.

- Some X are not Y: If some element of X are not Y , then they have to be
in Y 0 . So, the intersection cell of X and Y 0 is not empty as Table 13.
Table 13: X intersection Y 0 has at least one element

X0
R(O) = Y 0

X
1

Y

set
From the bilateral diagram of R(O) , we get R(O)
= {4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15}.

Let’s consider the relationship between the possible bilateral diagrams of the
categorical syllogisms before discussing of the categorical syllogisms via Carroll’s
diagrams.
Example 3.2. Let pi and pj be two possible forms of the bilateral diagrams of
major and minor premises, respectively. We take the possible forms of bilateral
diagrams as Table 14.
Table 14: The possible forms of bilateral diagrams

P0
0

1

0

M

0

0

pi = M

S0

S

0

0

1

M

0

0

P
and

pj = M

We input the data on trilateral diagram as in Figure 2.
11

Figure 2: The relation of two possible forms

By using the elimination method, we obtain the relation between S and P as
Table 15.
Table 15: The relation between S and P

P0

P

pk = S 0

0

0

S

1

0

ri = 8 corresponds to possible form pi , and rj = 4 corresponds to possible form pj , then we obtain that rk = 2 corresponds to pk that is a possible
conclusion.
Let rival and rjval be the numbers corresponding to possible forms of bilateral
diagrams which have a common term. Then we can get the relation between
two other terms by using this method.
After these examples, we try to generalize them by a formula.
Definition 3.3. The syllogistic possible conclusion mapping, denoted ∗, is a
mapping which gives us the deduction set of possible forms of major and minor
premises sets.
Theorem 3.1. Let rival and rjval correspond to the numbers of possible forms of
major and minor premises, respectively. Then, rival ∗ rjval equals the value given
by the intersection of row and column numbers corresponding to rival and rjval
in Table 16.

12

Table 16: Operation table

∗

0

0

0

1

2

3

4

8

12

5

10

6

9

7

11

13

14

15

1

1

4

5

2

2

8

10

3

3

12

H

4

1

4

5

8

2

8

10

12

3

12

H

5

1

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

10

2

8

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

6

3

12

9

6

11

14

7

13

15

9

3

12

6

9

7

13

11

14

15

7

3

12

13

7

H4

H30

7

13

H10

11

3

12

14

11

H3

H40

11

14

H20

13

3

12

7

13

7

13

H4

H30

H10

14

3

12

11

14

11

14

H3

H40

H20

15

3

12

15

15

H1

H2

H1

H2

H

In the Table 16, considering possible conclusion operation, some possible
forms of premises have more than one possible conclusions, given as below:
H = {6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15}, H1 = {7, 11, 15}, H10 = {6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15},
H2 = {13, 14, 15}, H20 = {11, 14, 15}, H3 = {6, 7, 11, 14, 15},
H30 = {6, 7, 13, 14, 15}, H4 = {7, 9, 11, 13, 15}, H40 = {9, 11, 13, 14, 15}
Therefore, we scrutinise all possible cases between two terms and their conclusions.
Note that, Table 16 is used as Syllogistic M apping() subalgorithm in Section 4.
Definition 3.4. Universes of values sets of major premises, minor premises,
set
set
and conclusions are denoted by Rset
Maj , RMin and RCon , respectively.

13

set
set
set
Let R(k)
be an element of Rset
Maj and R(l) be an element of RMin . The main

problem is what the conclusion of these premises is. In syllogistic, we have some
patterns which are mentioned in Table 3 and Table 4 above. Now, we explain
them by using bilateral diagrams with an algebraic approach.
Definition 3.5. The syllogistic mapping, denoted by ~, is a mapping which
gives us the conclusion of the major and the minor premises as Table 17.
Table 17: The conclusion of the major and the minor premises

P0

S0

P

P0

S

0

~ M

0

= S

M

M

S

M

P

0

set
set
Theorem 3.2. Let R(k)
= {rkval
, . . . , rkset
} and R(l)
= {rlval
, . . . , rlval
} two sets
1
n
1
t
set
corresponding to the Major and the Minor premises. Then ~ : Rset
Maj × RMin →

Rset
Con
n [
t
[

set
set
R(k)
~ R(l)
:=

rkval
∗ rlval
j
i

j=1 i=1

is the conclusion of the premises

set
R(k)

set
and R(l)
.

Theorem 3.3. [21] A syllogism is valid if and only if it is provable in SLCD.
Remark 3.1. For conditional valid forms, we need an addition rule which is
“Some X are X”. We can use above Theorem by taking into consideration this
rule.
Remark 3.2. Let SLCD be noted calculus system. If the rule “Some X are X
when X exists” (i.e., ` I XX ) is added to SLCD, then the calculus system SLCD
is denoted by SLCD† .
Definition 3.6. [21] Let R(k) be the bilateral diagram presentation of the premise.
The transposition of a premise is the symmetric positions with respect to the
main diagonal. It is shown by T rans(R(k) ).
T rans : Rset
set
R(k)

→

Rset ,

set
set
→ T rans(R(k)
) = {rkval
T , . . . , rk T }.
n
1

14

set
set
Theorem 3.4. [21] Let R(k)
= {rkval
, . . . , rkset
} and R(l)
= {rlval
, . . . , rlval
} be
1
n
1
t

two sets to correspond to the Major and the Minor premises values sets and
set
R(s)
= {rsval
, . . . , rsset
} be set to correspond to the constant set values which
1
m

means “Some S are S”, “Some M are M” and “Some P are P”. Then ~† :
set
set
Rset
Maj × RMin → RCon

set
set
R(k)
~† R(l)


S n St Sm

val
var
var



j=1 i=1 h=1 (rkj ∗ (rsh ∗ rliT )),


S n St Sm
val
var
var
:=
j=1 i=1 h=1 (rkj ∗ (rli ∗ rsh )),




S
S
S

var
val
var
 nj=1 ti=1 m
h=1 ((rsh ∗ rkT ) ∗ rli ),

If S exists,
If M exists,
If P exists.

j

set
set
is the conclusion of the premises R(k)
and R(l)
under the conditions S exists,

M exists or P exists.
Theorem 3.5. [21] A strengthened syllogism is valid if and only if it is provable
in SLCD† .

4. An Algorithmic Decision for Categorical Syllogisms in SLCD
In this part of the manuscript, we give an algorithm to decide whether a
categorical syllogism is valid or not in the calculus system SLCD or SLCD† at
the first time in the literature.
Global variables used to all functions are below:
Conc[ ][ ] : two dimensional array, set of all possible bilateral diagrams
Const set : constant set for each condition S exists, M exists and P exists
• Algorithm Syllogism:
This is the main algorithm. In this algorithm, M P SM () and Decision() subalgorithms are run for each state (Unconditional, S exists, M exists and P exists)
and for each figure (Figure1, Figure2, Figure3 and Figure4). This algorithm
sends related figure as parameter to subalgorithm M P SM () and also, it sends

15

the related state and figure as parameters to subalgorithm Decision().
Algorithm 1: Syllogism
Data: All states for each Figure
Result: Obtain the Conclusion set of syllogisms and make a decision for
syllogisms whether “Valid” or “Invalid”.
1

Syllogism()

2

foreach cond in
Conditions{U nconditional, S exists, M exists, P exists} do

3

foreach f ig in F igures{F igure1, F igure2, F igure3, F igure4} do

4

M P SM (f ig)

5

Decision(cond, f ig)

• Subalgorithm MPSM:
This algorithm determines the positions of the subject term, middle term and
predicate term with respect to the figure parameter as input.

16

Algorithm 2: MPSM
Data: The specified figure
Result: Positions of the major and minor terms are determined
1

MPSM(fig)

2

if f ig = “F igure1” then

3

mj1 = “M ”; mj2 = “P ”

4

mn1 = “S”; mn2 = “M ”

5

else if f ig = “F igure2” then

6

mj1 = “P ”; mj2 = “M ”

7

mn1 = “S”; mn2 = “M ”

8

else if f ig = “F igure3” then

9

mj1 = “M ”; mj2 = “P ”

10

mn1 = “M ”; mn2 = “S”

11

else if f ig = “F igure4” then

12

mj1 = “P ”; mj2 = “M ”

13

mn1 = “M ”; mn2 = “S”
• Subalgorithm Decision:

This algorithm determines major and minor sets for each prepositions (A, E,
I and O) of major and minor premises by using Set Interpretation() subalgorithm. We obtain premises conclusion via Syllogistic M apping() using major
set and minor set values with respect to Table 16. Later, for the analysed figure
the premises conclusion set is compared to all conclusion sets under the corresponding state. If these are equal to each other, then the algorithm prints
“valid” output for the related syllogism.

17

Algorithm 3: Decision
Data: The set interpretations of major and minor premises of syllogisms.
Result: Obtain the Conclusion set of syllogisms and make a decision for
syllogisms whether “Valid” or “Invalid”.
1

Decision(cond,fig)

2

foreach mj prep in P repositions{A, E, I, O} do

3

major set = Set Interpretation(mj prep, “major”, cond)

4

foreach mn prep in P repositions{A, E, I, O} do

5

minor set = Set Interpretation(mn prep, “minor”, cond)

6

premises conclusion =
Syllogistic M apping(major set, minor set)

7
8
9

foreach conc prep in P repositions{A, E, I, O} do
if premises conclusion = Conc[cond][conc prep] then
P rint mj prep & mn prep & conc prep & “ − V alid”

• Subalgorithm Set Interpretation:
In this algorithm, temp set is determined for premise type and premise preposition as unconditional state.
- If the state is “S exists” and the premise type is “minor” then new temp set
is determined by taking the transpose of temp set and it returns result of the
subalgorithm Syllogistic M apping() which gets inputs as the constant set and
the new temp set, respectively.
- If the state is “M exists” and the premise type is “minor” then it returns result
of the subalgorithm Syllogistic M apping() which gets inputs as the temp set
and the constant set, respectively.
- If the state is “P exists” and the premise type is “major” then new temp set
is determined by taking the transpose of temp set and it returns result of the
subalgorithm Syllogistic M apping() which gets inputs as the constant set and
the new temp set, respectively.

18

- If the state is “Unconditional” then it just returns the temp set.
Algorithm 4: Set Interpretation
Data: The specified premise preposition, premise type and state
Result: The conclusion set
1

Set Interpretation(premise prep, premise type, cond)

2

Determine T emp set using premise type and premise prep for
Unconditional state with respect to the Diagram

3
4

if premise type = “minor” then
if cond = “S Exists” then

5

N T emp set = transpose the diagram of T emp set

6

return Syllogistic M apping(Const set, N T emp set)

7
8

9
10

if cond = “M Exists” then
return Syllogistic M apping(T emp set, Const set)
if premise type = “major” then
if cond = “P Exists” then

11

N T emp set = transpose the diagram of T emp set

12

return Syllogistic M apping(Const set, N T emp set)

13

return T emp set

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we present a new effective algorithm for categorical syllogisms
by using calculus system SLCD at the first time in literature. In accordance with
this purpose, we explain categorical syllogisms by the help of Carroll’s diagrams
and we find unconditionally valid syllogisms and conditionally valid syllogisms
via this algorithmic approach. As a result, our aim in this paper is to design
an algorithm to contribute to researchers getting into the act in different areas
of science used categorical syllogisms such as artificial intelligence, engineering,
computer science and also mathematics.

19

References
References
[1] J. Barnes, The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, 2014.
[2] J. Lukasiewiczl, Aristotle’s Syllogistic From the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic (2nd Edition), 1957.
[3] B. Kumova, H. Cakir, Algorithmic decision of syllogisms, Trends in Applied
Intelligent Systems (2010) 28–38.
[4] I. Pratt-Hartmann, L. S. Moss, On the computational complexity of the
numerically definite syllogistic and related logics, Review of Symbolic Logic
2 (2009) 647–683.
[5] B. A. Kulik, The logic of natural discourse, Nevskiy Dialekt.
[6] J. Niittymäki, E. Turunen, Traffic signal control on similarity logic reasoning, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 133 (2003) 109–131.
[7] S. L. Kryvyi, A. V. Palagin, To the analysis of natural languages object,
Intelligent Processing (2009) 36–43.
[8] L. A. Zadeh, Syllogistic reasoning as a basis for combination of evidence in
expert systems, 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
(1985) 417–419.
[9] J. Rocha, J. Meseguer, A rewriting decision procedure for dijkstra-scholtens
syllogistic logic with complements, Revista Colombiana de Computación RCC 8 (2).
[10] L. Carroll, Symbolic logic and the game of logic, Vol. 1, Courier Corporation, 1958.

20

[11] R. T. Nakatsu, Using venn diagrams to perform logic reasoning: an algorithm for automating the syllogistic reasoning of categorical statements,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems 29 (1) (2014) 84–103.
[12] R. Mayer, Thinking, problem solving, and cognition (2nd edition), New
York: W.H. Freeman.
[13] R. Mayer, Multimedia learning (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] J. Glasgow, N. Narayanan, B. Chandrasekeran, Diagrammatic reasoning,
Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
[15] A. Moktefi, Beyond syllogisms: Carrolls (marked) quadriliteral diagram,
Visual Reasoning with Diagrams, Springer (2015) 55–71.
[16] J. M. Castro-Manzano, Re (dis) covering leibnizs diagrammatic logic,
Tópicos, Revista de Filosofı́a 52.
[17] O. Skliar, R. E. Monge, S. Gapper, Using inclusion diagrams as an alternative to venn diagrams to determine the validity of categorical syllogisms,
arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.00926.
[18] J. M. Castro-Manzano, Slupecki’s rule for diagrammatic reasoning, Studia
Metodologiczne 35 (2015) 79–96.
[19] A. Moktefi, S.-J. Shin, A history of logic diagrams, Handbook of the History
of Logic 11 (2012) 611–682.
[20] A. E. Kulinkovich, Algorithmization of reasoning in solving geological problems, Proceedings of the Methodology of Geographical Sciences, Naukova
Dumka (1979) 145–161.
[21] I. Senturk, T. Oner, An algebraic analysis of categorical syllogisms by using
carroll’s diagrams, Filomat (Accepted).

21

