You're using an ancient browser to surf the modern web. Please update to the latest version (and don't use Internet Explorer!).

Leonardi.DB
a logical geometry project

Disentangling Contradiction from Contrariety via Incompatibility (2016), p. 166
by Beziau, Jean-Yves

Caption

The meta-hexagon of opposition from a positive perspective

Logic

Aristotelian family
Jacoby-Sesmat-Blanché Sigma-3
Boolean complexity
3–4
Number of labels per vertex (at most)
1
Errors in the diagram
Yes

Geometry

Shape
Hexagon (regular)
Colinearity range
0
Coplanarity range
0
Cospatiality range
0
Representation of contradiction
By central symmetry

Vertex description

Conceptual info
No
Mnemonic support (AEIO, purpurea ...)
No
Form
none
Label type
linguistic
Language
English
Lexical field
metalogic
Contains partial sentences or single words
Yes
Contains abbreviations
No

Edge description

Contains definitions of relations
No
Form
solid lines
Has arrowheads
Yes
Overlap
No
Curved
No
Hooked
No
As wide as vertices
No
Contains text
No
Label type
none

Style

Diagram is colored
Yes
Diagram is embellished
No

Additional notes

The most plausible interpretation of this diagram is one in which it has Boolean complexity 4 (because next to CD, C and SC, there is still a fourth possibility viz. NCD). However, on this interpretation, the uppermost vertex is CD v C v NCD (rather than CD v C), and thus is makes little sense to call this uppermost vertex 'incompatibility'. For example, we have NCD(p,p), yet we would not say that p is incompatible with itself.

Another interpretation of this diagram is one in which it has Boolean complexity 3, because we assume that NCD = $\emptyset$. In that case, the vertex labels are all ok. However, it is extremely implausible to assume that any two formulas are always contradictory, contrary or subcontrary to each other. (In normal circumstances, the vast majority of pairs of formulas will be NCD, rather than CD, C or SC.)
↑ Back to top ↑