Talk:2769: Overlapping Circles

Incorrect. I’m sure there are set theorists who get excited about that shape who are not astronomers, and astronomers who get excited about that shape who are not set theorists, and people who get excited about it who are neither. 162.158.91.35 23:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not a set theorist, but I don't think that's what the Venn diagram is trying to say. My understanding is that both set theorists and astronomers get excited about that shape, not that only people who are both astronomers and set theorists would be excited. Alcatraz ii (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Alcatraz ii. The original poster has a point that there are people who agree neither set theorists nor astronomers and get excited about this shape, but a Venn diagram does not imply that the people in the overlapping section are both set theorists and astronomers. Python (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Python

Actually, it does. That's what overlaps in a Venn diagram mean, it's the set of entities that satisfy both conditions. Nitpicking (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right. People who get excited about the diagram would be the union of the two sets, not intersection. Unless Randall is saying that only astronomers who are also set theorists are so enamored of the two diagrams that they get excited about it. Barmar (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

On title text: I'm pretty sure that if two sets are represented by a single circle rater than two, it's no longer a Venn diagram but merely an Euler diagram. 172.71.94.3 00:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A single circle can be either. Two (or more) intersecting circles/loops-of-whatever-shape can be either, but might disqualify themselves from being strict Venns if they do not exhibit exactly 2ⁿ different sub-regions from n basic standalone partitioning regions. (This includes the whole surrounding one, not within any single partition, which purists might deem needs an "everything else"-sort of label/manifest, if you're putting things inside other parts, but that maybe can be taken as read.)

You can't but help having 2 regions (inside and outside) from an n=1 circle. (And one region from being constrained by n=0 partitioning boundaries!)

It's once you have two or more that you start to get the Euler-not-Ven exceptions, like entirely unintersecting groups (notably misnamed, by this comic) or only partially supporting all groups (misnamed by Cueball, in-Universe), unless you make effort to have some (singly unique) areas covering all combinations of all options.

But an annular eclipse probably doesn't count. In 9ne, you cannot see/infer a point upon the Moon's surface that is not also where the Sun 'is' – albeit obscured – though you do see bits of Sun-surface that have no Moon coincident to your view (during the phase of maximum coverage). One assumes that non-annular eclipses (or hypo-annular ones, where the Sun's bodily 'cross-section' is at a minimum compared to the Moon's) are just onzerved as perfect fits. And this must exclude the upper-atmosphere/corona of the Sun (the Bailey's Beads/Diamond Ring effects being the limiting factors), so that you theoretically have a single circle and announce to yourself that all that you see within that is on a sightline which intersects both Sun and Moon, and all sightlines outwith that circle intersect neither. No room in your defining diagram/worldview/skyview for one XOR the other (like having a region for "red cars", but handling red non-cars and non-red cars (and all things that are neither red nor a car) as possibilities. 141.101.98.9 03:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)