DOCSLIB.ORG

Bibliographie

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bibliographie Bibliographie Abramsky, S. 1996 Semantics of Interaction : an Introduction to Game Semantics, in [Dybjer et al. 1996, 1-31]. Alur, R., T. Henzinger & O. Kupferman 1997 Alternating-time temporal logic, in Proc. 38th FOCS, 100-109. Anscombre, J.C. & O. Ducrot 1983 L’Argumentation dans la Langue, Bruxelles : Mardaga, 1983. Arrow, K.J. 1963 Social Choice and Individual Values, New York : Wiley, 1963. Aucher, G. 2003 A Combined System of Update Logic and Belief Revision,Mas- ter of Logic Thesis, Amsterdam : ILLC, 2003. Axelrod, R. 1984 The Evolution of Cooperation, New York : Basic Books, 1984. Balbiani, P., N.-Y. Suzuki, F. Wolter & M. Zakharyaschev (eds.) : 2003 Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 4, London : King’s College Pu- blications, 2003. Baltag, A., L. Moss & S. Solecki 1998 The Logic of Public Announcements, Common Knowledge and Private Suspicions, Proceedings TARK 1998, Los Altos : Morgan Kaufmann, 1998, 43-56. Barth, E. and Krabbe, E. 1982 From Axiom to Dialogue : A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Berlin, New York : De Gruyter, 1982. Batens, D. 2003 A General Characterization of Adaptive Logics, Logique & Ana- lyse, vol. 173-175, 45-68. Behounek, L. (ed.)´ 2004 The Logica Yearbook 2003, Prague : Filosofia, 2004. Belnap, N., M. Perloff & M. Xu 2001 Facing the Future, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2001. 212 Bibliographie Bendegem, J. Van 2001 Paraconsistency and Dialogue Logic : Critical Examination and further Explorations, Synthese 127, 35-55. Benthem, J. van 1989 ‘Semantic parallels in natural language and computation’ in [Ebbinghuas 1989, 331-75]. 2001a Logic in Games, Lecture notes, Amsterdam : ILLC, 2001. 2001b (ed.) Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Pro- ceedings of the Eighth Conference (TARK 2001), San Francisco : Morgan Kaufmann, 2001. 2001c Games in Dynamic-Epistemic Logic, Bulletin of Economic Re- search 53 :4, 219-48 (Proceedings LOFT-4, Torino). 2002 One is a Lonely Number : On the Logic of Communication, Tech Report PP-2002-27, Amsterdam : ILLC, 2002. 2003 Conditional Probability Meets Update Logic, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 409-21. 2004a A Mini-Guide to Logic in Action, Philosophical Researches, Beijing : Supp : 21-30. 2004b Local versus Global Update in Games, Stanford : Department of Philosophy, Stanford University, working paper. Benthem, J. van & B. ten Cate 2003 Automata and Update Agents in Event Trees, Stanford : De- partment of Philosophy, Stanford University, working paper. Benthem, J. van & B. F. Liu 2004 Diversity of Logical Agents in Games, Research Report PP- 2004-13, Amsterdam : ILLC, 2004. Benthem, J. van & A. ter Meulen (eds.) 1997 Handbook of Logic and Language, Amsterdam : Elsevier, 1997. Benthem J. van, G. Heinzmann, M. Rebuschi & H. Visser (eds.) 2004 The Age of Alternative Logics,Dordrecht:Kluwer,`aparaˆıtre. J. A. Bergstra, Ponse, A. & Smolka, S.A. 2001 Handbook of Process Algebra, New York : Elsevier, 2001. Blackburn, P. 2001a Modal logic as dialogical logic, Synthese 127, 57-93. 2001b Fine grained theories of time, in [Wansing 2001, 1-36]. Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M. & Venema, Y. 2002 Modal Logic, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002. Blackburn, P. & J. Seligman 1998 What are Hybrid Languages ?, in [Kracht et al., 1998, 41-62]. Bibliographie 213 Blackburn, P. & M. Tzakova 1999 Hybrid languages and Temporal logic, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 7(1), 27-54. Blass, Andreas 1998 Some Semantical Aspects of Linear Logic, Journal of the In- terest Group in Pure and Applied Logic 5, 115-126. Borel, E. 1921 La Th´eorie du jeu et les ´equations int´egrales `anoyausym´e- trique, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des S´eances de l’Acad´emie des Sciences, 173, 1304-8. Bonanno, G., E. Colombatto & W. van der Hoek (eds.) 2002 Fifth Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT 5),Turin,ICER. 2004 Memory and Perfect Recall in Extensive Games, Games and Economic Behavior 47 : 237-56. Boutilier, C. 1994 Towards a logic for qualitative decision theory, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’94), 75-86, San Francisco : Morgan Kaufmann. Bradfield, J.C. 1999 Fixpoints in arithmetic, transition systems and trees, Theore- tical Informatics and Applications, 33, 341-356. 2000 Independence : logics and concurrency, Proc. CSL 2000,LNCS 1862, 247-261. 2003 Parity of imperfection, Proc. CSL 2003, LNCS 2803, 72-85. Bradfield,J.C.&S.B.Froschle¨ 2002 Independence-friendly modal logic and true concurrency, Nor- dic Journal of Computing 9, 102-117. Bradfield,J.C.&C.P.Stirling 2001 ‘Modal logics and mu-calculi : an introduction’, in [Bergstra et al. 2001, 293-330]. Caelen J., D. Vernant & D. Vanderveken (eds.) 200 ? Logic and Dialogue,Dordrecht:Kluwer,`aparaˆıtre. Caicedo, X. & M. Krynicki 1 1999 Quantifiers for Reasoning with Imperfect Information and Σ1 - logic, in [Carnielli 1999, 17-31]. Cameron, P. & W. Hodges 2001 Some combinatorics of imperfect information, Journal of Sym- bolic Logic 66, 673-684. 214 Bibliographie Carnielli, W.A. & I.M.L. Ottaviano (eds.) 1999 Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 235, American Mathematical Society. Cenzer, D. 1976 Monotone inductive definitions over the continuum, Journal of Symbolic Logic 41 :1, 188-198. Coquand, Th. 1995 A semantics of evidence for classical arithmetic, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 60, 325-337. Crawford, V. & J. Sobel 1982 ‘Strategic information transmission’, Econometrica, 50, 1431- 51. D’Agostino, M., D. Gabbay, R. Hahnle¨ & J. Posegga (eds.) 1999 Handbook of Tableau Methods, Dordrecht : Kluwer, 1999. Ducrot, O. 1973 La preuve et le dire, Paris : Mame, 1973. Dybjer, P. & A. Pitts (eds.) 1996 Proceedings 1996 CLiCS Summer School, Cambridge : Cam- bridge University Press, 1996. Ebbinghuas, H.D. et al. (eds.) 1989 Logic Colloquium ’87, Amsterdam : Elsevier Science Publishers, 1989. Eijck, J. van & H. Kamp 1997 Representing Discourse in Context, in [van Benthem & Meulen 1997, 179-237]. En¸c, M. 1986 Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions, Lin- guistics and Philosophy, Vol. 9, 405-26. 1987 Anchoring Conditions for Tense, Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 4, 633-57. Enderton, H.B. 1970 Finite partially ordered quantifiers, Zeitschrift fur¨ Mathema- tische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 16, 393-397. Fagin, R., J. Halpern, Y. Moses & M. Vardi 1995 Reasoning about Knowledge, Cambridge (Mass.) : The MIT Press, 1995. Bibliographie 215 Fitting, M. 1983 Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logic,Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983. Fitting M. & R.L. Mendelsohn 1998 First-order Modal Logic, Dordrecht : Kluwer, 1998. Frege, G. 1964 Begriffsschrift und andere Aufs¨atze, (edited by I. Angelelli), Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964. Fudenberg, D. & Tirole, J. 1991 Game Theory, Cambridge (Mass.) : The MIT Press, 1991. Fuhrmann, A. 1985 Ein relevanzlogischer Dialogkalkul¨ erster Stufe, Conceptus 48, 51-65. Gabbay D. M. 1996 Labelled Deductive Systems, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1996. Gabbay, D.M. & F. Gunthner¨ (eds.) 2004 Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed., Vol. 13, Dordrecht : Kluwer,aparaˆ ` ıtre. Gabbay, D.M., C. J. Hogger & J. A. Robinson (eds.) 1994 Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, volume 3 of Handbook 15 of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Pro- gramming, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1994. Genabith J., H. Kamp & U. Reyle Discourse Representation Theory, in [Gabbay & Gunthner¨ 2004], http ://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/∼hans/ Girle R. 2000 Modals Logics and Philosophy, London : McGill-Queen’s Uni- versity Press, 2000. Good, I.J. 1950 Probability and the Weighing of Evidence, Londres : Griffin, 1950. Gottlob, G. 1997 Relativized logspace and generalized quantifiers over finite or- dered structures. Journal of Symbolic Logic 62 : 2, 545-574. Gottwald, S. 1989 Mehrwertige Logik. Eine Einfuhrung¨ in Theorie und Anwen- dungen, Berlin : Akademie-Verlag, 1989. 216 Bibliographie Grice, H.P. 1967 Logic and conversation, William James Lectures,HarvardUni- versity, reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words, 1989, Cambridge (Mass.) : Harvard University Press, 1989. Groenendijk, J. 1984 Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, PhD thesis, Amsterdam : University of Amsterdam, 1984. Groenendijk, J. & M. Stokhof 1991 Dynamic Predicate Logic, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39- 100. Gardenfors,¨ P. 1998 Knowledge in Flux, Cambridge (Mass.) : The MIT Press, 1998. Harel,D.,D.Kozen&J.Tiuryn 2000 Dynamic Logic, Cambridge (Mass.) : The MIT Press, 2000. Harrenstein, B.P. 2002 A game-theoretical notion of consequence in [Bonanno et al. 2002] Harrenstein, B.P., J.-J. van der Hoek, W.C. Meyer & C. Wit- teveen 2001 Boolean games, in [van Benthem 2001b]. Hendricks, V. 2003 Active Agents, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 469-95. Herbelin, H. 1995 S´equents qu’on calcule,Th`esededoctorat,Paris:Universit´e Paris VII, 1995. Hilpinen, R. 1982 On C. S. Peirce’s Theory of the Proposition : Peirce as a Precur- sor of Game-theoretical Semantics, The Monist 65 (1982), 182-8. Hintikka, J. 1973 Logic, Language-Games and Information, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1973. 1996 The principles of mathematics revisited, Cambridge : Cam- bridge University Press, 1996. 2002a Quantum Logic as a Fragment of Independence-Friendly Lo- gic, Journal of Philosophical Logic 31, 197-209. 2002b Negation in Logic and in Natural Language, Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 585-600. Bibliographie 217 2003 Epistemology Without Knowledge and Without Belief, manus- crit. Hintikka,J.&J.Kulas 1983 The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contextual Epistemic Logic Manuel Rebuschi, Franck Lihoreau
    Contextual Epistemic Logic Manuel Rebuschi, Franck Lihoreau To cite this version: Manuel Rebuschi, Franck Lihoreau. Contextual Epistemic Logic. C. Degrémont, L. Keiff & H. Rückert. Dialogues, Logics and Other Strange Things. Essays in Honour of Shahid Rahman, King’s College Publication, pp.305-335, 2008, Tributes. hal-00133359 HAL Id: hal-00133359 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00133359 Submitted on 11 Jan 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Contextual Epistemic Logic Manuel Rebuschi Franck Lihoreau L.H.S.P. – Archives H. Poincar´e Instituto de Filosofia da Linguagem Universit´eNancy 2 Universidade Nova de Lisboa [email protected] [email protected] Abstract One of the highlights of recent informal epistemology is its growing theoretical emphasis upon various notions of context. The present paper addresses the connections between knowledge and context within a formal approach. To this end, a “contextual epistemic logic”, CEL, is proposed, which consists of an extension of standard S5 epistemic modal logic with appropriate reduction axioms to deal with an extra contextual operator. We describe the axiomatics and supply both a Kripkean and a dialogical semantics for CEL.
    [Show full text]
  • Implicit Versus Explicit Knowledge in Dialogical Logic Manuel Rebuschi
    Implicit versus Explicit Knowledge in Dialogical Logic Manuel Rebuschi To cite this version: Manuel Rebuschi. Implicit versus Explicit Knowledge in Dialogical Logic. Ondrej Majer, Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen and Tero Tulenheimo. Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy, Springer, pp.229-246, 2009, 10.1007/978-1-4020-9374-6_10. halshs-00556250 HAL Id: halshs-00556250 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00556250 Submitted on 16 Jan 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Implicit versus Explicit Knowledge in Dialogical Logic Manuel Rebuschi L.P.H.S. – Archives H. Poincar´e Universit´ede Nancy 2 [email protected] [The final version of this paper is published in: O. Majer et al. (eds.), Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy, Dordrecht, Springer, 2009, 229-246.] Abstract A dialogical version of (modal) epistemic logic is outlined, with an intuitionistic variant. Another version of dialogical epistemic logic is then provided by means of the S4 mapping of intuitionistic logic. Both systems cast new light on the relationship between intuitionism, modal logic and dialogical games. Introduction Two main approaches to knowledge in logic can be distinguished [1]. The first one is an implicit way of encoding knowledge and consists in an epistemic interpretation of usual logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Inferential Semantics As Argumentative Dialogues Davide Catta, Luc Pellissier, Christian Retoré
    Inferential Semantics as Argumentative Dialogues Davide Catta, Luc Pellissier, Christian Retoré To cite this version: Davide Catta, Luc Pellissier, Christian Retoré. Inferential Semantics as Argumentative Dialogues. DCAI 2020 - 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Jun 2020, L´Aquila, Italy. pp.72-81, 10.1007/978-3-030-53829-3_7. hal-02922646 HAL Id: hal-02922646 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02922646 Submitted on 26 Aug 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Inferential Semantics as Argumentative Dialogues Davide Catta1, Luc Pellissier2, and Christian Retor´e1 1 LIRMM, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier [email protected], [email protected] 2 Partout, INRIA Saclay ^Ile de France [email protected] Abstract. This paper is at the same time a first step towards an \im- plementation" of the inferentialist view of meaning and a first proposal for a logical structure which describes an argumentation. According to inferentialism the meaning of a statement lies in its argumentative use, its justifications, its refutations and more generally its deductive rela- tion to other statements. In this first step we design a simple notion of argumentative dialogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Arguing Ecosystem Values with Paraconsistent Logics
    Arguing Ecosystem Values with Paraconsistent Logics Juan Afanador University of Edinburgh November 18, 2019 Abstract The valuation of ecosystem services prompts dialogical settings where non-trivially incon- sistent arguments are often invoked. Here, I propose an approach to the valuation of ecosystem services circumscribed to a logic-based argumentation framework that caters for valid inconsis- tencies. This framework accounts for preference formation processes underpinned by a paracon- sistent model of logical entailment. The value of an ecosystem service is produced in the form of an ordering over competing land-use practices, as per the arguments surviving semantical probing. Keywords: valuation of ecosystem services, abstract argumentation, paraconsistent logics, Dialetheism. 1 Introduction The valuation of ecosystem services deals with distinct and contradictory views on value, a mul- tiplicity that typically reflects opposing or conflicting land-use practices. At times, it is the case that the same people who acknowledge the importance of the benefits derived from a particular ecosystem function, and who are also aware of the connection between the two, undertake actions that contravene the precedence of such knowledge. Furthermore, these decisions are not made in the abstract, but mediated by various forms of sociality involving dialogue —even if only implicitly. This document presents an approach to the valuation of ecosystem services that incorporates the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in valuation —an approach I term Argumentative arXiv:1911.06367v1 [cs.LO] 14 Nov 2019 Valuation (AV). AV relies on an argumentation framework structured around Dialetheism. AV’s argumentation framework enables the dialogical settings where values substantiate, while its di- aletheic substrate allows for true (truthful) inconsistencies in the values’ antecedents.
    [Show full text]
  • Chu's Construction
    Chu's construction: A proof-theoretic approach revisited G. Bellin October 1, 2015 Abstract The paper Chu's construction: A proof-theoretic approach (Bellin 2003) relates the proof-theoretic question about the meaning of Girard's long trips condition for proof nets to research (Hyland and Schalk 2003) on abstract structures with self-duality related to game-semantics, namely, dialectica categories (De Paiva 1991) and Chu's construction (Barr 1979). We consider an informal interpretation inspired by htis result, assuming that the role of player and opponent in a dialogue may involve different illocutionary forces (question / answer, assertion/ doubt). We ask how this relates to other game theoretic or dialogical interpretations. Simple self-duality and the long trip condition. The abstract of (Bellin 2003) says: "The essential interaction between classical and intuitionistic features in the system of linear logic is best described in the language of category theory. Given a symmetric monoidal closed category C with finite products, the category C × Cop can be given the structure of a ∗-autonomous category by a special case of the Chu construction. Girard's trips induce translations of classical MLL− proof net into intuitionistic proof in IMLL− and these translations determine the functor from the free ∗-autonomous op category A on a set of atoms fP1; P2;:::g to C × C , where C is the free monoidal closed category with products and coproducts on 0 0 0 the set of atoms fP1; P1; P2; P2;:::g (a pair P, P in C for each atom P of A)." 1. CMLL: Classical Multiplicative Linear Logic Language of CMLL: A; B := P j P? j 1 j ? j A ⊗ B j A}B in negation normal form: 1? = ?; (A ⊗ B)? = (A?}B?), etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation Theory Vs Formal Logic: the Case of Scientific Argumentation and the 'Logic' of Controversies
    INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM INSIDE ARGUMENTS LOGIC vs ARGUMENTATION THEORY Faculty of Letters of the University of Coimbra (Portugal) March 24-26, 2011 __________________________ ABSTRACTS (alphabetical order) _________________ 1 A Little Light Logic Alec Fisher University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK As a student, in the 1960s, I trained as a philosopher and mathematical logician. When I began teaching philosophy and logic I had a shock―which was that teaching logic didn‟t help my students to be more logical (teaching philosophy didn‟t seem to help either). So I began to work on ways of helping students become more logical and reasonable. This was a relatively novel idea in the 1970s and it lead first to the publication of The Logic of Real Arguments and later to Critical Thinking: An Introduction―with various diversions into assessment issues on the way. In this, my last conference talk (!), I shall reflect on the roles of formal logic, informal logic and critical thinking in education – and on some of the mistakes I have made! Some Thoughts about Logical Form and Argument Analysis Andrei Moldovan University of Salamanca, Spain The purpose of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, it is a rejection of some arguments present in the literature against the relevance of formal logic to argument analysis and evaluation. On the other hand, it is an assessment, from the perspective of philosophy of language, of formal analysis of arguments. I claim that without having a good understanding of some fundamental concepts in philosophical semantics and pragmatics, such as logical form, implicature and presupposition, formal analyses of arguments are prone to error.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSTRUCTIVE TYPE THEORY and the DIALOGICAL Rules for Dialectical Games Presented in the Topics (Θ, 2, 157A 34 and 3 APPROACH to MEANING 8,160B)
    Constructive Type Theory 2 The Baltic International Yearbook of 1. INTRODUCTION: KUNO LORENZ AND THE DIALOGICAL TURN Cognition, Logic and Communication Since the time of ancient Greece—where the agora emerged as the first November 2013 Volume 8: Games, Game Theory public space for discussion and decision-making on diverse and serious and Game Semantics matters—and after the crucial influence of the Sophists, of Plato and pages 1-72 DOI: 10.4148/1944-3676.1077 of Aristotle, dialectical reasoning won a place in our understanding of science and the constitution of society that it has kept ever since. SHAHID RAHMAN In a recent paper M. Marion and H. Rückert (forth)—who for Université de Lille, UMR 8163: STL the first time since the early papers by Kuno Lorenz and Jürgen Mit- 2 NICOLAS CLERBOUT tlestrass (1966; 1967) take up the historic roots of the theory of Université de Lille, UMR 8163: STL meaning underlying dialogical logic—show how the notion of quan- tified expressions in Aristotle’s syllogistic was based on some specific CONSTRUCTIVE TYPE THEORY AND THE DIALOGICAL rules for dialectical games presented in the Topics (Θ, 2, 157a 34 and 3 APPROACH TO MEANING 8,160b). However, after Aristotle, the theories of inference and of dialectical reasoning followed different paths and thus the dynamic as- pects of logic were lost. Furthermore, during the years immediately following the failure of the project of logical positivism, the links be- ABSTRACT: In its origins Dialogical logic constituted one part tween science as a body of knowledge and science as a process by of a new movement called the Erlangen School or Erlangen Con- which knowledge is achieved were cut off.
    [Show full text]
  • Functorial Vector Space Semantics and String Diagrams for Lambek Calculus
    Lambek vs. Lambek: Functorial Vector Space Semantics and String Diagrams for Lambek Calculus Authors: Bob Coecke, Edward Grefenstette, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh Affiliation: Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford Address: Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD Emails: [email protected] Abstract The Distributional Compositional Categorical (DisCoCat) model is a mathematical framework that provides compositional semantics for meanings of natural language sentences. It consists of a computational procedure for constructing meanings of sentences, given their grammatical structure in terms of compositional type-logic, and given the empirically derived meanings of their words. For the particular case that the meaning of words is modelled within a distributional vector space model, its experimental predictions, derived from real large scale data, have outperformed other em- pirically validated methods that could build vectors for a full sentence. This success can be attributed to a conceptually motivated mathematical underpinning, something which the other methods lack, by integrating qualitative compositional type-logic and quantitative modelling of meaning within a category-theoretic mathematical framework. The type-logic used in the DisCoCat model is Lambek’s pregroup grammar. Pregroup types form a posetal compact closed category, which can be passed, in a functorial manner, on to the compact closed structure of vector spaces, linear maps and tensor product. The diagrammatic versions of the equational reasoning in compact closed categories can be interpreted as the flow of word meanings within sentences. Pregroups simplify Lambek’s previous type-logic, the Lambek calculus. The latter and its extensions have been extensively used to formalise and reason about various linguistic phe- nomena.
    [Show full text]
  • On W H Y Non Normal M O D a L I T I E S . Pluralism for A
    ON WH Y NON NORMAL MO D A L I T I E S . PLURALISM FOR A MONIST AND THE CASE OF THE COUNTERLOGICAL Shahid Rahman Université Lille 3 Abstract The aim of the paper is to offer a dialogical interpretation of non-normal modal logic which will suggest some explorations beyond the concept of non-normality. This interpretation will be connected to the dis- cussion of a minimalist defence of logical pluralism. Keywords: non-normal modal logics; dialogical logic; logical pluralism. Convincitur ergo etiam insipiens esse vel in intellectu … Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion, capitulum II, Ps 13, 1, 52, 1 (Thus, even he who knows no better will be convinced that at least it is in the intellect…) At the end of the 19th century Hugh MacColl (1837-1909), the father of pluralism in formal logic, attempted in the north of France (Boulogne sur mer) to formulate a modal logic which would challenge the semantics of material implication of the post-Boolean wave. It seems that in some of his various attempts MacColl sugges- ted some systems where the rule of necessitation fails.i Moreover, the idea that no logical necessity has universal scope - or that no logic could be applied to any ar- gumentative context - seems to be akin and perhaps even central to his pluralistic philosophy of logic.ii Some years later Clarence Irwin Lewis furnished the axioma- tics for several of these logics and since then the critics on the material implication have shown an increasing interest in these modal logics called “non-normal”. When Saul Kripke studied their semantics of
    [Show full text]
  • A Very Brief Introduction to Standard Classical and Intuitionistic Dialogical Logic Shahid Rahman
    A Very Brief Introduction to Standard Classical and Intuitionistic Dialogical Logic Shahid Rahman To cite this version: Shahid Rahman. A Very Brief Introduction to Standard Classical and Intuitionistic Dialogical Logic. 2015. halshs-01226098 HAL Id: halshs-01226098 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01226098 Preprint submitted on 8 Nov 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License A Very Brief Introduction to Standard Classical and Intuitionistic Dialogical Logic Shahid Rahman Université de Lille, UMR 8163: STL, ADA(MESHS-nord-Pas-de Calais) (Draft 10 Oct 2014) The present paper, that provides an introduction to standard dialogical logic, has mainly didactic purposes. Thus, the study of the metalogical properties has been left totally by side. However, two sections have been added for those readers willing to go through a technically more demanding material. The first one contains a technically rigorous presentation of standard dialogical logic the second one presents, some very recent work towards a logic with content, applied to modal logic, where modal logic is developed in a purely dialogical way: instead of worlds, we have contexts, constituted by hypothetical assertions and where transitions between worlds are understood as extending contexts by the means of questions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Curious Dialogical Logic and Its Composition Problem
    A curious dialogical logic and its composition problem Sara L. Uckelman ([email protected]) ∗ Exzellenzcluster \Asia and Europe", Karl Jaspers Centre for Advanced Transcultural Studies, Ruprecht-Karls Universit¨atHeidelberg Jesse Alama ([email protected]) Center for Artificial Intelligence, New University of Lisbon Aleks Knoks ([email protected]) Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland Abstract. Dialogue semantics for logic are two-player logic games between a Pro- ponent who puts forward a logical formula ' as valid or true and an Opponent who disputes this. An advantage of the dialogical approach is that it is a uniform framework from which different logics can be obtained through only small variations of the basic rules. We introduce the composition problem for dialogue games as the problem of resolving, for a set S of rules for dialogue games, whether the set of S-dialogically valid formulas is closed under modus ponens. Solving the composition problem is fundamental for the dialogical approach to logic; despite its simplicity, it often requires an indirect solution with the help of significant logical machinery such as cut-elimination. Direct solutions to the composition problem can, however, some- times be had. As an example, we give a set N of dialogue rules which is well-justified from the dialogical point of view, but whose set N of dialogically valid formulas is both non-trivial and non-standard. We prove that the composition problem for N can be solved directly, and introduce a tableaux system for N. Keywords: composition problem, dialogical logic, tableaux ∗ The first two authors were partially funded by the FCT/NWO/DFG project \Dialogical Foundations of Semantics" (DiFoS) in the ESF EuroCoRes pro- gramme LogICCC (FCT LogICCC/0001/2007; LogICCC-FP004; DN 231-80-002; CN 2008/08314/GW).
    [Show full text]
  • Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science Volume 15
    GAMES: UNIFYING LOGIC, LANGUAGE, AND PHILOSOPHY LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND THE UNITY OF SCIENCE VOLUME 15 Editors Shahid Rahman, University of Lille III, France John Symons, University of Texas at El Paso, U.S.A. Editorial Board Jean Paul van Bendegem, Free University of Brussels, Belgium Johan van Benthem, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands Jacques Dubucs, University of Paris I-Sorbonne, France Anne Fagot-Largeault Collège de France, France Bas van Fraassen, Princeton University, U.S.A. Dov Gabbay, King’s College London, U.K. Jaakko Hintikka, Boston University, U.S.A. Karel Lambert, University of California, Irvine, U.S.A. Graham Priest, University of Melbourne, Australia Gabriel Sandu, University of Helsinki, Finland Heinrich Wansing, Technical University Dresden, Germany Timothy Williamson, Oxford University, U.K. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science aims to reconsider the question of the unity of science in light of recent developments in logic. At present, no single logical, semantical or methodological framework dominates the philosophy of science. However, the editors of this series believe that formal techniques like, for example, independence friendly logic, dialogical logics, multimodal logics, game theoretic semantics and linear logics, have the potential to cast new light no basic issues in the discussion of the unity of science. This series provides a venue where philosophers and logicians can apply specific technical insights to fundamental philosophical problems. While the series is open to a wide variety of perspectives, including the study and analysis of argumentation and the critical discussion of the relationship between logic and the philosophy of science, the aim is to provide an integrated picture of the scientific enterprise in all its diversity.
    [Show full text]