You eat some of your dog’s food?

“what his breath smells like” is in the category of “things he’ll eat”, which unfortunately doesn’t work as part of the graph, considering the intangibility, and therefor un-eat-ability of “what his breath smells like”

If “what his breath smelled like resided SOLELY in the categories of “Poo” and “Garbage”, and PART of “Poo” and part of “garbage” crossed into the circle of “things he’ll eat” while part of the cross section of “poo” and “garbage” remained outside the circle of “things he’ll eat”…. AND, that particular outside cross section of “poo” and “garbage” was labeled “what his breath smells like”… the graph would work fine. (Except for that tail thing that was mentioned, though i suppose he could eat his tail.)

But then again that was confusing to type, let alone draw out with circles.

In the meantime, this graph is –ALMOST– a win, I guess. :-\

Disappointed.

I think it’s perfectly OK to make a space for the intersection of C1, C2, and C3 even if that intersection is empty. It’s also acceptable to make non-empty intersections that aren’t labeled with specific examples. For intersections which are *obviously* empty, it might be poor style to make spaces for them when such confusion can be avoided. (It is possible to make three circles such that any two of them overlap, but where the 3-way intersection doesn’t exist. It’s even easier if you don’t use circles. Just draw an ellipse around each side of a triangle.)
I was trying not to add or subtract anything from the original submission. Since it was silent on whether or not there was anything that his dog would track through house, roll in, and that his breath smelled like, I was also silent on that.

This one.
b) things that are simultaneously “Things he’ll track through the house”, “Things his breath smells like”, and “Things he likes to dig through”

The above are sets. Poo, dirt, squirrels, bacon, etc. are points that might belong in some, none, or all of those sets. It is not meaningful for points to overlap, or to be contained in other points. (And to continue with the first question, the fact that you can even conceive of something in all three sets, means that they should all overlap, even if nothing inside is explicitly specified.

Good catch! That is what I intended to do. In that portion of the Venn Diagram, I wanted to take the keep the intent of the original but invert all the containment relations. That is, whenever he had a set contained in the intersection of two points, I made both points contained in that set. I must have gotten my indicies crossed at some point in the process.

They’re not simple mistakes, the creator of this graph has totally misunderstood how to use Venn Diagrams, he’s got it completely 100% backwards.

I do have a mathematical question for fjw to answer once he’s sober again:

Where both C1, C2, and C3 all intersect in the very middle, is it proper to leave that space blank or must all fields in a ven diagram have labels/values?

And assuming that space must have a value, would that space be
a) things that are simultaneously garbage, dirt, and poo?
b) things that are simultaneously “Things he’ll track through the house”, “Things his breath smells like”, and “Things he likes to dig through”
or
c) all of the above (things that are simultaneously garbage, dirt, poo, “Things he’ll track through the house”, “Things his breath smells like”, and “Things he likes to dig through”)

I suppose one circumstance that would satisfy any of those options would be if someone threw potting soil in the garbage and it was subsequently consumed and excreted by an animal.

I would also say that to be consistent with the intended conditions of picklepickle’s original ven diagram, poo and garbage should be switched on fjw’s version so that poo is at the intersection of C1 and C2 and garbage is at the intersection of C2 and C3. Of course fjw’s dog may be more likely to dig through poo than picklepickle’s dog.