**Finding the Antipodes:**

**Mathematical Constructivism and the Changing Logic of Cartographic Objects, 1960-1975**

Abstract of my AAG 2012 Paper

**In mathematics everything is**

*algorithm*and nothing is meaning; even when it doesn't look like that because we seem to be using*words*to talk*about*mathematical things.**Even these words are used to construct an algorithm.**

**---Ludwig Wittgenstein**

**...a proof of the existence of a magnitude can only be seen as completely rigorous if it contains a method by which the magnitude whose existence is being claimed can really be found.**

**---Leopold Kronecker**

**We look upon maps not only as stores of spatially ordered information, but also as a means for the graphical solution of certain problems for which the mathematics proves to be intractable.**

**--William Warntz**

In the early years of computer cartography new levels of abstraction entered into the field of geographical analysis through the algorithmic development of theorems from pure mathematics. In an attempt to answer previously intractable geographical questions, concepts from pure mathematics, like existence theorems, whose basic logical structure contains statements that confirm or deny the existence of particular sets of mathematical objects, were employed in various computer mapping schemes. The development of these programs injected high levels of topological and algebraic abstraction into geographical analysis and changed the basic ontology of geographic objects. Existence theorems, although they provide logical proof for whatever mathematical entity they are claiming existence for, do not however, necessarily provide a way to find or calculate those objects. In the field of pure mathematics existence theorems had long been objects of controversy from both a practical and philosophical perspective and their use sparked debates among many mathematicians. Mathematicians and philosophers, like Leopold Kronecker and Ludwig Wittgenstein, questioned the utility of a mathematical proof that provided no algorithmic way to find the mathematical object whose existence is claimed, while others such as David Hilbert and Richard Dedekind, saw no conceptual or philosophical difficulties with their use. This debate among the so-called constructivists, like Wittgenstein, who believed that in mathematics “everything is algorithm”, and the formalists like Hilbert, has left a large body of philosophical literature that has deeply analyzed the ontology of mathematical objects. [1]

In the fields of geography and cartography, these theorems entered into early computer systems through the construction of practical algorithms that calculated particular sets of objects useful in geographic analysis. Two important papers that can be seen as case studies in the use of constructivist forms of existence theorems in early computer cartography were published in the series

*Harvard Papers in Theoretical Geography*by William Warntz and his associates at the Harvard Lab for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This series of papers developed algorithmic constructions of many existence theorems and two of the most interesting, because of the sheer complexity of the mathematics, the Borsuk-Ulam Theorem and the Ham Sandwich Theorem, were applied to real world geographic problems [2].

Besides using existence theorems, mathematical cartographers would also begin to re-conceptualize on a more general level questions about the use of pure mathematics and its role in defining the diagrammatic logic of maps. In an early lecture, later written as a discussion paper for the Michigan Inter-University Community of Mathematical Geographers, Warntz says that, "More than ever before geographers are using the tools of calculus, probability, topology, symbolic logic, the various algebras, geometries, for example, are being taken more literally than ever before." He elaborates on these comments by explaining to the reader that something as abstract and foreign to geography as Venn diagrams are being taken, "in a far more literal sense than they were originally intended and by substituting real space and attendent phenonema for ideal space and by insisting on the utilization of all geometric properties involved as well as just the topological ones, geographers can reinterpret, add to, and refine the conventional concepts in the methodology of uniform regional geography and provide it with a basis in logic." [3]

Many geographers at the time would push the concept logic form and notions from set theory further into geographic analysis and not just in the sense of a useful analogy. In a paper written for one of the classic compilations texts from early years mathematical geography called,

*The Philosophy of Maps,*Warntz and others like Waldo Tobler, and William Bunge, would change not only the vocabulary used in analysis but would also alter the very form of its expression. In an article in the collection, called

*Some Elementary and Literal Notions About Geographical Analysis and Extended Venn Diagrams*, Warntz would say that, "Maps showing regional classification can be regarded as logic diagrams. Mapping of sets is a general mathematical concept. Geographical mapping is merely a special case of this." [4] Warntz here sees almost a mereological or mereotopological relationship between the spatial extent of Venn diagrams and their isomorphic counterparts of geographic regions.

John Venn

It is quite remarkable that the two systems of logic that Warntz draws on in this paper, Venn diagrams and existential graphs, are both visual and not symbolic logical systems. Most of the work done in logic during the 20th century has focused on symbolic systems with little research, at least until quite recently, on the heterogeneous reasoning of the type Warntz is advocating. He says that, "It is part of our purpose here to extend the use of such diagrams to the mapping of geographical regions by making use of properties already inherent in Venn diagrams but as yet unutilized... We intend to apply spatial properties literally to real spatial distributions on the earth's surface..."Venn diagrams can grow to extremely complex forms depending on the number of sets one is dealing with and recent research on the use of logical diagrams has shown that Warntz was ahead of his time in thinking that the spatial and geometrical component of logical diagrams would be useful analogs for spatial maps. [5]

As stated above, Warntz' paper calls on the work of Charles Sanders Peirce (above) and his existential logic diagrams, which he sees as mappings from non-spatial sets to geographical maps. Looking at the complexity of Peirce's systems, there is both an

*alpha*and

*beta*form depending on the required complexity, one wonders how deeply Warntz explored the subject of existential graphs. An important aspect of these graphs that Warntz thought useful for regional geographic analysis was the fact that a logic diagram can be drawn as a two-dimensional figure with spatial relations that are isomorphic with the structure of some logical statement. This is very important if one is going to try to apply set theory of the type Warntz is envisioning here, simply because these spatial relations are usually of a topographic nature.Logic diagrams, especially the type developed by Peirce (simple examples shown above with a page frm Peirce's notebook below), stand in the same relation to the various logical algebras as maps of areas stand in relation to their particular algebraic functions; they are simply other ways of symbolizing the same basic structure. [6]

In much of what Warntz has to say here we are reminded of the long way we have come when talking about set theory, topology and the formal properties of spatial structures and their relationship to cartography. One only has to look at books like Varzi and Casati's,

*Parts and Places: the Structures of Spatial Representations*(MIT, 1999) [7] to get a feel for how our language and conceptual grasp of these topics has improved since Warntz and others involved in the early development of computer cartography were experimenting with what at the time were radically new ideas.

The current project envisioned here, which grew out of my research for the 20th century volume of the

*History of Cartography,*will provide a mathematical and philosophical analysis of both of the Harvard papers mentioned above, along with others from this formative period that apply set theory and logical analysis, in an effort to show not only how constructivist methods migrated from mathematics to geography, but also to show how these new levels of abstraction changed the foundational ontology of geographic and cartographic objects. Using the philosophical debates that took place over things like existence theorems in the mathematical literature as a basis, this study will show that a foundational shift in the ontology of geographical objects opened the door to new conceptualizations of geographic space and formed the theoretical basis for the development of spatial logics and the current use of topological and abstract algebraic methods in geographical analysis.

[1] It is interesting to note that many early mathematical geographers had an interest in Wittgenstein. Waldo Tobler, in a private communication, told me recently that he was persuaded by Peter Gould (1932-2000) to take up the reading of Wittgenstein.

[2] The two papers are;

*Geography and an Existence Theorem: A Cartographic computer solution to the localization on a sphere of sets of equal-valued antipodal points for two-continuous distributions with practical applications to the real earth*(1968) and

*The Sandwich Theorem: A basic one for geography*(1971).

[3]

*A Note on Surfaces and Paths and Applications*, William Warntz, Discussion Paper Number 6, Michigan Inter-University Community of Mathematical Geographers, 1965.

[4]

*The Philosophy of Maps*, edited by John Nystuen, Michigan Inter-University Community of Mathematical Geographers Discussion Paper 12, 1968.

[5] For recent research on the logical status of Venn diagrams and the nature of spatial logic see, Eric Hammer (1995),

*Logic and Visual Information*, Stanford CA: Center for the Study of Logic and Information; Nathaniel Miller (2007),

*Euclid and His Twentieth Century Rivals: Diagrams in the Logic of Euclidean Geometry*, Studies in the Theory and Applications of Diagrams, Stanford CA: Center for the Study of Logic and Information and Sun-Joo Shin (1994),

*The Logical Status of Diagrams*, New York: Cambridge University Press.

[6] For more on Peirce's Existential Graphs see Sun-Jo Shin's seminal study,

*The Iconic Logic of Peirce's Graphs*, MIT Press, 2002.

[7] Achille Varzi and Roberto Casati,

*Part and Places: The Structure of Spatial Representations*, MIT Press. 1999.