Talk:Euler diagram

Hi,

I have not got time this morning to collect all the images off the site and wikify this page yet. So I will try to do this tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin48gx (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 August 2005

copyright

I hope this is not a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin48gx (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 August 2005

This is all my own words now

So no copyright problem. Also the diagrams included were creted by me using a Java based tool that I wrote. So again no copyright problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin48gx (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 August 2005a

• Heh, isn't that nice...*voice trails off* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.16.84 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 June 2006

*CJ*HELPING ME ON THIS DIAGRAM  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.157.248 (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 

Connecting languages

I added this page to the Japanese Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to connect it to this one under the "in other languages" bar. Can someone help me out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.117.44 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Add [[ja:NAME OF THE ARTICLE ON THE JAPANESE WIKIPEDIA]] at the bottom of the article on the English Wikipedia where there is a pt and zh link of the same type. Lexicon (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Relation to pie charts

Are Euler diagrams and Venn diagrams only used for logic, or also for statistics? For a single variable, such as the color of cars, I can make a pie chart to illustrate which are more common. But for two variables, such as the brand and color of cars, it could be useful to draw diagrams that indicate the overlap, while the area of the graph is proportional to the market share. One might find that there are more black Mercedes, more blue Fords and more white Toyotas. Software such as OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Excel can do pie charts, but not the overlapping kind. If they could, what would that kind of diagram be called? And what software can do such charts? --LA2 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

clarification

"Euler diagrams usually consist of simple closed curves in the plane which are used to depict sets. The spatial relationships between the curves (overlap, containment or neither) corresponds to set-theoretic relationships (intersection, subset and disjointness).

Euler diagrams generalise the well-known Venn diagrams which represent all possible set intersections available with the given sets.

The intersection of the interior of a collection of curves and the exterior of the rest of the curves in the diagrams is called zone. Thus, in Venn diagrams all zones must be present (given the set of curves), but in an Euler diagram some zones might be missing."

The above statement is not clear, I do not think one can generalize Euler's diagram as above. If there is no relation between animals and minerals, obviously it cannot be represented. If one was to say "food:minerals:animals that consume certain minerals" it would make sense and a Euler diagram can be drawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.194 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 October 2008

@above, I am not sure but if you can select items specifically, get some demux...then the charts can be done for all possible combinations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.207.194 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 October 2008

more like the way we do it on a board. you have to have an attachment identifier What I did like about Euler over Venn is that he sees it as "whole" and then parts of a whole, not intersections etc. so there is nothing like "a and b" it is "b true in a" kinds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs) 11:50, 14 October 2008

another noticeable thing is , that boolean algebra is closer to Euler diagrams. for example a, a.b and a.b.c would be the 3 different zones , whereas one could call them 3 different events in logic circuits too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Usage + Mislabing on the Web

Many sites use Euler diagrams, or diagrams similar to those mentioned by "Relation to Pie Charts", but call them Venn diagrams. This blog postis a prime example. In fact, it could be used to explain Euler diagrams (I'm particularly impressed by the "dinosaurs etc. are only awesome if they are also ninjas" representation). To get back to the point at hand, the vast majority of Euler diagrams on the web are labeled as Venn diagrams, and most "Venn diagrams" are Euler diagrams, at least on humor sites. Should this be mentioned in the article? I find it very relevant and interesting. 65.96.201.130 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Four legs

Tables and chairs have four legs and aren't animals.

I concur with the above, bearing in mind that not all tables and chairs have four legs. Also I have seen four legged stone tables. Also The black on dark blue is hard to see. Maybe another example would be more effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.14.133 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That first diagram is misleading and should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.75.108 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hi, it is "four legs" within animals in the 1st figure. The Venn Diagram is misleading, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.192.21 (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Euler's circle related to Euler diagrams?

The lead paragraph says: "It is the modern manifestation of an Euler circle, which was invented by Leonhard Euler in the 18th century." As far as I can tell from 1 and 2, the Euler circle or nine-point circle is a trigonometric construction, a circle inscribed in a triangle, and has nothing to do with set theory or Euler diagrams. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of your evidence I eliminated this from the lead paragraph; also hinted at a dispute about the attribution of Euler diagrams to Euler (this appears in both the Venn and the Euler articles' histories). Bill Wvbailey (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a large number of books [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] that use "Euler circle" in the sense of a logical object. There are many more - I only stopped there because I got tired of looking them up. SpinningSpark 14:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As the left-hand illustration points out under "History" in the article, Venn discusses what he called "Eulerian circles" to be used in an "Eulerian scheme" (i.e. diagram). This is signficantly different from an "Euler circle" in the sense that Chetvorno discovered. So what to do? There's already a disambiguation page for Euler circle that includes both Nine point circle and Euler diagram. So in a sense the problem is solved.

What I've been finding as I go deeper into the history of various mathematical topics (by consulting the original texts and papers) is that all sorts of canards have appeared due to sloppy scholarship in the intervening years. This isn't the first time that confusion has been the result: Any time I've worked on a wikipedia biography something similar has occurred. Probably a header above the article is in order to make it clear that "Euler circle" has been used as the name for "Nine point circle" and is unrelated to the "Eulerian circles" of set theory and logic. Something like this:

This article is about the "Eulerian circles" of set theory and logic; for the geometric "Euler circle" see Nine point circle.

For other examples of this method see Turing machine and Function. Oh hell, I'm going to just do this and let you folks agree or not agree (modify, revert, whatever ...)

Bill Wvbailey (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Chetvorno^TALK 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"A Euler" vs "An Euler"

Just thought I would point out that due to Euler's pronunciation (yu-), we should be saying "a Euler diagram" rather than "an Euler Diagram". I noticed this on the caption at the top of the page and I didn't know how to edit this, so I thought maybe someone here could. akokoza 00:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom of the page. From my reading of the article Leonard Euler the correct pronunciation is "oy-ler" i.e. "oiler", not "you-ler". (This is the way I learned to say it ca 1960's.) Thus "An oiler" rolls off the American tongue much better than "A oiler". But I am open to argument. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"akokoza", when have you ever heard anyone pronounce his name that way? And Wvbailey, do you really need to rely on that article for the pronunciation rather than on the way you always hear everyone pronounce it? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is a mess

...visually speaking, because of all the giant diagrams, and I don't even know how to begin fixing it. · rodii · 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The visuals depend almost completely on all of these simultaneiously: your browser, your settings for landscape versus protrait, your screen aspect-ratio (e.g. wide-aspect 1.78:1 (1366 x 768) versus boxier 1.38:1 (1450 by 1050)), your native screen resolution (e.g. 1450 x 1050 versus 1280 x 1024, or 1366 x 768 versus 1024 x 768 ), and the screen-magnification settings (e.g. the Windows browser the "100%", or whatever, magnifier at the bottom right). Just for an instance try changing the magnification -- the visual results are remarkably different. (I am simultaneously viewing this on three high-resolution, wide-aspect screens (Win 7, Vista) and an old boxier-aspect screen (Win XP). I changed the pixel size of the very large diagram from 1200px to 800px. I have noticed that under certain of these circumstances the drawings cover part of the text. BillWvbailey (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Euler diagrams include Venn diagrams?

I changed the sentence in the introduction which read "They [Euler diagrams] include Venn diagrams." While this is technically true, I feel it will be confusing for nonmathematical readers (the most common kind) who may merely be looking for the most easy-to-understand definitions. The first section of the article clearly explains the relationship between the two. Comments? --Chetvorno^TALK 04:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "nonmathematical readers" find many, perhaps most, of the mathematical articles on Wikipedia to be confusing. Whether that can be avoided without compromising accuracy is another matter, but someone coming here wanting to know, simply, "What is the difference between an Euler diagram and a Venn diagram?" is not going to find the answer without a huge amount of wading through long-winded examples. 86.186.54.115 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, someone should rewrite the examples to remove the "wikipedia bloat" they've accumulated. But it sure wouldn't help nontechnical readers for the intro to say that Euler diagrams "include" Venn diagrams. In terms of method they are different. And as I say, the first section explains the differences as well as the mathematical similarities pretty well. Fortunately, no one is forcing the reader to go on to the examples. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In Swedish, please

Can anyone write this in page in Swedish, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.200.201.76 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Venn diagram ... does not encapsulate these diagrams

The text of the article (at 13 May 2014) states: In the examples above, the Euler diagram depicts that the sets Animal and Mineral are disjoint since the corresponding curves are disjoint, and also that the set Four Legs is a subset of the set of Animals. The Venn diagram, which uses the same categories of Animal, Mineral, and Four Legs, does not encapsulate these relationships.
There is not example of a Venn diagram above, and in the absence of such an example, the statement "the Venn diagram ... does not encapsulate these relationships" reads as a general statement about Venn diagrams. That statement is certainly not true. It is trivial to create a Venn diagram that encapsulates the relationship that (some) 4-legged entities are a subset of the set of animals. It could be modified (by shading the currently non-empty intersection between "4 legs" and "mineral") to indicate that 4 legs is a wholly a subset of the set of animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.96.22 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Too technical and complex. I'm simplifying based on WP:TECHNICAL

Too technical and complex. I'm simplifying based on WP:TECHNICAL. It should be relatively easy for the layperson to understand.Dig Deeper (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Dwarf planets in the Euler diagram

The Euler diagram seems to suggest that most dwarf planets are also considered minor planets, but that there is also a small number of dwarf planets lying outside the group of minor planets. However, I believe that all dwarf planets belong among minor planets. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"In the example below"

In the Euler_diagram#Relation_between_Euler_and_Venn_diagrams section, we state "In the examples below, the Euler diagram depicts that the sets Animal and Mineral are disjoint..." That example does not appear below (it is at the top of the page). I think it could do with being inserted below the statement for illustrative purposes, but I'm going to leave that to regulars on this page since there could be a better way to rearrange this and it's probably best left to regulars around here. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The first diagram appears to show a "proper subset" not "subset"

If, A=Animals and B=4-legged animals then elements of B are all in A but A has more elements. This sounds like the definition of proper subset. I think this belongs to proper subset page. Zeyn1 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

No Euler diagram depicting the relationship between Euler diagrams and Venn diagrams?

The gallery contains an example of a Venn diagram depicting the sets of people who understand what Euler and Venn diagrams are, but there is no example of an Euler diagram depicting that (as the intro says) a Venn diagram is a type of Euler diagram. Is this a missed opportunity? —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 21:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)