Semantic games with chance moves revisited: from IF logic to partial logic

We associate the semantic game with chance moves conceived by Blinov with Blamey’s partial logic. We give some equivalent alternatives to the semantic game, some of which are with a third player, borrowing the idea of introducing the pseudo-player called Nature in game theory. We observe that IF propositional logic proposed by Sandu and Pietarinen can be equivalently translated to partial logic, which implies that imperfect information may not be necessary for IF propositional logic. We also indicate that some independent quantifiers can be regarded as dependent quantifiers of indeterminate sequence, using the interjunction connective in partial logic. We conclude our paper by indicating some further research in a more general setting.     

多值逻辑与语义赋值博弈

文章在扩展博弈上,给出了多值逻辑的语义赋值博弈的一般框架,避免了博弈者在多值逻辑的语义博弈中声明无穷对象的问题;然后通过Eloise赢的策略定义博弈的语义概念——赋值,证明了多值逻辑的博弈语义与Tarski语义是等价的;最后,根据语义赋值博弈框架对经典逻辑进行了博弈化。     

IF多值逻辑及博弈语义

本文基于经典一阶逻辑句法的逻辑优先性分析,把Hintikka的独立联结词和独立量词扩展到多值逻辑中。我们给出IF多值逻辑的句法,并使用不完全信息的语义赋值博弈解释了IF多值逻辑。     

Expressivity of Imperfect Information Logics without Identity

In this article we investigate the family of independence-friendly (IF) logics in the equality-free setting, concentrating on questions related to expressive power. Various natural equality-free fragments of logics in this family translate into existential second-order logic with prenex quantification of function symbols only and with the first-order parts of formulae equality-free. We study this fragment of existential second-order logic. Our principal technical result is that over finite models with a vocabulary consisting of unary relation symbols only, this fragment of second-order logic is weaker in expressive power than first-order logic (with equality). Results about the fragment could turn out useful for example in the study of independence-friendly modal logics. In addition to proving results of a technical nature, we address issues related to a perspective from which IF logic is regarded as a specification framework for games, and also discuss the general significance of understanding fragments of second-order logic in investigations related to non-classical logics.     

How to Lewis a Kripke–Hintikka

It has been argued that a combination of game-theoretic semantics and independence-friendly (IF) languages can provide a novel approach to the conceptual foundations of mathematics and the sciences. I introduce and motivate an IF first-order modal language endowed with a game-theoretic semantics of perfect information. The resulting interpretive independence-friendly logic (IIF) allows to formulate some basic model-theoretic notions that are inexpressible in the ordinary quantified modal logic. Moreover, I argue that some key concepts of Kripke’s new theory of reference are adequately modeled within IIF. Finally, I compare the logic IIF to David Lewis counterpart theory, drawing some morals concerning the interrelation between metaphysical and semantic issues in possible-world semantics.     

A cirquent calculus system with clustering and ranking

Cirquent calculus is a new proof-theoretic and semantic approach introduced by G. Japaridze for the needs of his theory of computability logic (CoL). The earlier article “From formulas to cirquents in computability logic” by Japaridze generalized formulas in CoL to circuit-style structures termed cirquents. It showed that, through cirquents with what are termed clustering and ranking, one can capture, refine and generalize independence-friendly (IF) logic. Specifically, the approach allows us to account for independence from propositional connectives in the same spirit as IF logic accounts for independence from quantifiers. Japaridze's treatment of IF logic, however, was purely semantical, and no deductive system was proposed. The present paper syntactically constructs a cirquent calculus system with clustering and ranking, sound and complete w.r.t. the propositional fragment of cirquent-based semantics. Such a system captures the propositional version of what is called extended IF logic, thus being an axiomatization of a nontrivial fragment of that logic.     

Thompson Transformations for If-Logic

In this paper we study connections between game theoretical concepts and results, and features of IF-predicate logic, extending observations from J. van Benthem (2001) for IF-propositional logic. We highlight how both characteristics of perfect recall can fail in the semantic games for IF-formulas, and we discuss the four Thompson transformations in relation with IF-logic. Many (strong) equivalence schemes for IF-logic correspond to one or more of the transformations. However, we also find one equivalence that does not fit in this picture, by the type of imperfect recall involved. We point out that the connection between the transformations and logical equivalence schemes is less direct in IF-first order logic than in the propositional case. The transformations do not generate a reduced normal form for IF-logic, because the IF-language is not flexible enough. Research funded by The Samenwerkingsorgaan Brabantse Universiteiten (SOBU).     

A Note on Bisimulation and Modal Equivalence in Provability Logic and Interpretability Logic

Provability logic is a modal logic for studying properties of provability predicates, and Interpretability logic for studying interpretability between logical theories. Their natural models are GL-models and Veltman models, for which the accessibility relation is well-founded. That’s why the usual counterexample showing the necessity of finite image property in Hennessy-Milner theorem (see [1]) doesn’t exist for them. However, we show that the analogous condition must still hold, by constructing two GL-models with worlds in them that are modally equivalent but not bisimilar, and showing how these GL-models can be converted to Veltman models with the same properties. In the process we develop some useful constructions: games on Veltman models, chains, and general method of transformation from GL-models/frames to Veltman ones.     

A New Game Equivalence,its Logic and Algebra

We present a new notion of game equivalence that captures basic powers of interacting players. We provide a representation theorem, a complete logic, and a new game algebra for basic powers. In doing so, we establish connections with imperfect information games and epistemic logic. We also identify some new open problems concerning logic and games.

     

Aristotle on Universal Quantification: A Study from the Point of View of Game Semantics

In this paper we provide an interpretation of Aristotle's rule for the universal quantifier in Topics Θ 157^a34–37 and 160^b1–6 in terms of Paul Lorenzen's dialogical logic. This is meant as a contribution to the rehabilitation of the role of dialectic within the Organon. After a review of earlier views of Aristotle on quantification, we argue that this rule is related to the dictum de omni in Prior Analytics A 24^b28–29. This would be an indication of the dictum’s origin in the context of dialectical games. One consequence of our approach is a novel explanation of the doctrine of the existential import of the quantifiers in dialectical terms. After a brief survey of Lorenzen's dialogical logic, we offer a set of rules for dialectical games based on previous work by Castelnérac and Marion, to which we add here the rule for the universal quantifier, as interpreted in terms of its counterpart in dialogical logic. We then give textual evidence of the use of that rule in Plato's dialogues, thus showing that Aristotle only made explicit a rule already implicit in practice, while providing a new interpretation of ‘epagogic’ arguments. Finally, we show how a proper understanding of that rule involves further rules concerning counterexamples and delaying tactics, stressing again the parallels with dialogical logic.     

The Logic of Location

I consider the idea of a propositional logic of location based on the following semantic framework, derived from ideas of Prior. We have a collection L of locations and a collection S of statements such that a statement may be evaluated for truth at each location. Typically one and the same statement may be true at one location and false at another. Given this semantic framework we may proceed in two ways: introducing names for locations, predicates for the relations among them and an “at” preposition to express the value of statements at locations; or introduce statement operators which do not name locations but whose truth-conditional effect depends on the truth or falsity of embedded statements at various locations. The latter is akin to Prior’s approach to tense logic. In any logic of location there will be some basic operators which we can define. By ringing the changes on the topology of locations, different logical systems may be generated, and the challenge for the logician is then in each case to find operators, axioms and rules yielding a proof theory adequate to the semantics. The generality of the approach is illustrated with familiar and not so familiar examples from modal, tense and place logic, mathematics, and even the logic of games.

相似文献   

N. A. Vasil’ev’s Logic and the Problem of Future Random Events

The solution of the problem of the future random events truth is considered in Vasil’ev’s logic. N. A. Vasil’ev graded the logic according to two levels—the level of facts, i.e. time fixed events, and the level of notions or rules, governing these facts. The mathematical construction previously suggested for imaginary Vasil’ev’s logic, extends to the early variant of his logic—a logic of notions. In the paper, we investigate the meaning of problematic and uncertain assertions introduced by Vasil’ev. As a result, we developed a model of Vasil’ev’s logic of facts that resolves also the truth problem of future random events. The imaginary logic has also been extended to the level of notions, and the law of the excluded eighth is gotten in it. The correspondence between Vasil’ev’s terms “some” and “all” and modern quantifiers is discussed.     

Internal Negation and the Principles of Non-Contradiction and of Excluded Middle in Aristotle

It has long been recognized that negation in Aristotle’s term logic differs syntactically from negation in classical logic: modern external negation attaches to propositions fully formed, whereas Aristotelian internal negation forms propositions from sentential constituents. Still, modern external negation is used to render Aristotelian internal negation, as may be seen in formalizations of Aristotle’s semantic principles of non-contradiction and of excluded middle. These principles govern the distribution of truth values among pairs of contradictory propositions, and Aristotelian contradictories always consist of an affirmation and a denial. So how should we formalize a false denial? In the literature, we find that a false denial is formalized by means of two negation signs attached to a one-place predicate. However, it can be shown that this rendering leads to an incorrect picture of Aristotle’s principles. In this paper, I propose a solution to this technical problem by devising a formal notation especially for Aristotelian propositions in which internal negation is differentiated from external negation. I will also analyze both principles, each of which has two logically equivalent forms, a positive and a negative one. The fact that Aristotle’s principles are distinct and complementary is reflected in my new formalizations.     

The Buridanian Account of Inferential Relations between Doubly Quantified Propositions: a Proof of Soundness

On the basis of passages from John Buridan's Summula Suppositionibus and Sophismata, E. Karger has reconstructed what could be called the ‘Buridanian theory of inferential relations between doubly quantified propositions’, presented in her 1993 article ‘A theory of immediate inference contained in Buridan's logic’. In the reconstruction, she focused on the syntactical elements of Buridan's theory of modes of personal supposition to extract patterns of formally valid inferences between members of a certain class of basic categorical propositions. The present study aims at offering semantic corroboration—a proof of soundness—to the inferential relations syntactically identified by E. Karger, by means of the analysis of Buridan's semantic definitions of the modes of personal supposition. The semantic analysis is done with the help of some modern logical concepts, in particular that of the model. In effect, the relations of inference syntactically established are shown to hold also from a semantic point of view, which means thus that this fragment of Buridan's logic can be said to be sound.     

Counting strategies and semantic analysis as applied to class inclusion

This study examined strategic and semantic aspects of the answers given by preschool children to class inclusion problems. The Piagetian logical model for class inclusion was contrasted with an alternative, problem processing model in three experiments. A major component of the alternative model is an enumeration strategy which is advantageous for learning reliable counting skills. The counting strategy was found to explain the inclusion errors of young children better than did the logic of the task. It was also found that young children understand the semantics of inclusion but are unable to coordinate their semantic knowledge with their counting strategy. Methodologically, one of the experiments suggested a fruitful extension of task analysis (Simon, 1969) to experimental design.     

Entailment and Bivalence

My purpose in this paper is to argue that the classical notion of entailment is not suitable for non-bivalent logics, to propose an appropriate alternative and to suggest a generalized entailment notion suitable to bivalent and non-bivalent logics alike. In classical two valued logic, one can not infer a false statement from one that is not false, any more than one can infer from a true statement a statement that is not true. In classical logic in fact preserving truth and preserving non-falsity are one and the same thing. They are not the same in non-bivalent logics however and I will argue that the classical notion of entailment that preserves only truth is not strong enough for such a logic. I will show that if we retain the classical notion of entailment in a logic that has three values, true, false and a third value in between, an inconsistency can be derived that can be resolved only by measures that seriously disable the logic. I will show this for a logic designed to allow for semantic presuppositions, then I will show that we get the same result in any three valued logic with the same value ordering. I will finally suggest how the notion of entailment should be generalized so that this problem may be avoided. The strengthened notion of entailment I am proposing is a conservative extension of the classical notion that preserves not only truth but the order of all values in a logic, so that the value of an entailed statement must alway be at least as great as the value of the sequence of statements entailing it. A notion of entailment this strong or stronger will, I believe, be found to be applicable to non-classical logics generally. In the opinion of Dana Scott, no really workable three valued logic has yet been developed. It is hard to disagree with this. A workable three valued logic however could perhaps be developed however, if we had a notion of entailment suitable to non-bivalent logics.     

Hintikka’s Logical Revolution

Hintikka thinks that second-order logic is not pure logic, and because of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, he suggests that we should liberate ourselves from the mistaken idea that first-order logic is the foundational logic of mathematics. With this background he introduces his independence friendly logic (IFL). In this paper, I argue that approaches taking Hintikka’s IFL as a foundational logic of mathematics face serious challenges. First, the quantifiers in Hintikka’s IFL are not distinguishable from Linström’s general quantifiers, which means that the quantifiers in IFL involve higher order entities. Second, if we take Wright’s interpretation of quantifiers or if we take Hale’s criterion for the identity of concepts, Quine’s thesis that second-order logic is set theory will be rejected. Third, Hintikka’s definition of truth itself cannot be expressed in the extension of language of IFL. Since second-order logic can do what IFL does, the significance of IFL for the foundations of mathematics is weakened.