Talk:Venn diagram

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venn diagram article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 27 May 2013 for a period of one week.

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Scientific modeling.

Just wrong[edit]

The claim VDs are used "to illustrate simple set relationships in probability, logic, statistics, linguistics and computer science." is true but misleading. They aren't used in English literature? or Biology? or Art History?? Just wrong to imply such a limited realm of applicability. It also is not the case that they exclusively "illustrate set relationships". "A Venn diagram uses simple closed curves drawn on a plane to represent sets. Very often, these curves are circles or ellipses." Do they have to be simple? Citation needed. Are there many exceptions to using ellipses? I'm sure there are some, but they're so rare in my experience that it's not worth considering. I suggest you remove the silly and awkward "on a plane". How does one draw "on a plane"? (OK, I grant that a 'plane surface' might suffice, but flat surface is way better (although specifying the surface on which the diagram is drawn is pretty silly and petty. ... Should we also specify the weight of the paper? LOL) Farther down, in the Details section the ridiculous claim is made "It is a diagram that shows all possible logical relations between a finite collection of different sets." This is easy to invalidate: picture two concentric circles, the outer labeled 'Real Numbers' and the inner labeled 'Rational Numbers'. It is more than absurd to claim that all possible (logical) relations are captured!!! Or picture two intersecting similar circles, sharing part of their area. Label one 'Men' and the other 'Women'. It is absurd to claim that the all logical relationships between those two categories is shown!! (In fact, it isn't clear what such a diagram is showing at all. Without context it's virtually meaningless.) Needs a rewrite. Preferably one that avoids bloviation and over-specification.174.130.71.156 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems easy enough to fix this with a few minor edits.

Why not just make them?

"to illustrate simple set relationships in probability, logic, statistics, linguistics and computer science." could have ", and other fields" added to it.

And "all possible logical relationships" could become "all possible logical relationships of set memberships".

DavidHobby (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]