Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

The Eu Approach to Formalizing Euclid: A Response to “On the Inconsistency of Mumma’s Eu”

John Mumma

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text


In line with Ken Manders’s seminal account of Euclid’s diagrammatic method in the “The Euclidean Diagram,” two proof systems with a diagrammatic syntax have been advanced as formalizations of the method FG and Eu. In a paper examining Eu, Nathaniel Miller, the creator of FG, has identified a variety of technical problems with the formal details of Eu. This response shows how the problems are remedied.

Article information

Notre Dame J. Formal Logic, Volume 60, Number 3 (2019), 457-480.

Received: 4 October 2013
Accepted: 18 August 2017
First available in Project Euclid: 2 July 2019

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Primary: 03A05: Philosophical and critical {For philosophy of mathematics, see also 00A30}
Secondary: 51M99: None of the above, but in this section 03B30: Foundations of classical theories (including reverse mathematics) [See also 03F35]

elementary geometry diagrams formalization


Mumma, John. The Eu Approach to Formalizing Euclid: A Response to “On the Inconsistency of Mumma’s Eu”. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 60 (2019), no. 3, 457--480. doi:10.1215/00294527-2019-0012.

Export citation


  • [1] Kulvicki, J., “Knowing with images: Medium and message,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 77 (2010), pp. 295–313.
  • [2] Macbeth, D., Realizing Reason: A Narrative of Truth and Knowing, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014.
  • [3] Manders, K., “The Euclidean diagram,” pp. 112–18 in Philosophy of Mathematical Practice, edited by P. Mancosu, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.
  • [4] Miller, N., Euclid and His Twentieth Century Rivals: Diagrams in the Logic of Euclidean Geometry, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 2007.
  • [5] Miller, N., “On the Inconsistency of Mumma’s Eu,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 53 (2012), pp. 27–52.
  • [6] Mumma, J., “Ensuring generality in Euclid’s diagrammatic arguments,” pp. 222–35 in Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, edited by G. Stapelton, J. Howse, and J. Lee, Springer, Berlin, 2008.
  • [7] Mumma, J., “Proofs, pictures, and Euclid,” Synthese, vol. 175 (2010), pp. 255–87.
  • [8] Mumma, J., “The role of geometric content in elementary geometrical reasoning,” Les Études Philosophiques, vol. 97 (2011/2), pp. 243–258.
  • [9] Mumma, J., “Constructive geometrical reasoning and diagrams,” Synthese, vol. 186 (2012), pp. 103–19.
  • [10] Mumma, J., “Intuition formalized: Ancient and modern methods of proof in elementary Euclidean geometry,” Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 2006.
  • [11] Shimojima, A., “Operational constraints in diagrammatic reasoning,” pp. 27–48 in Logical Reasoning with Diagrams, edited by G. Allewen and J. Barwise, vol. 6 in Studies in Logic and Computation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.