We present a game semantics in the style of Lorenzen for Girard's linear logic . Lorenzen suggested that the meaning of a proposition should be specified by telling how to conduct a debate between a proponent P who asserts and an opponent O who denies . Thus propositions are interpreted as games, connectives as operations on games, and validity as existence of a winning strategy for P. We propose that the connectives of linear logic can be naturally interpreted as the (...) operations on games introduced for entirely different purposes by Blass . We show that affine logic, i.e., linear logic plus the rule of weakening, is sound for this interpretation. We also obtain a completeness theorem for the additive fragment of affine logic, but we show that completeness fails for the multiplicative fragment. On the other hand, for the multiplicative fragment, we obtain a simple characterization of game-semantical validity in terms of classical tautologies. An analysis of the failure of completeness for the multiplicative fragment leads to the conclusion that the game interpretation of the connective is weaker than the interpretation implicit in Girard's proof rules; we discuss the differences between the two interpretations and their relative advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we discuss how Gödel's Dialectica interpretation , which was connected to linear logic by de Paiva , fits with game semantics. (shrink)

Volume 6, Issue 3, September 2015, Page 292-309.

Denotational semantics of logic programming and its extensions have been studied thoroughly for many years. In 1998, a game semantics was given to definite logic programs by Di Cosmo, Loddo, and Nicolet, and a few years later it was extended to deal with negation by Rondogiannis and Wadge. Both approaches were proven equivalent to the traditional semantics. In this paper we define a game semantics for disjunctive logic programs and prove soundness and completeness with respect to the minimal model semantics (...) of Minker. The overall development has been influenced by the games studied for PCF and functional programming in general, in the styles of Abramsky–Jagadeesan–Malacaria and Hyland–Ong–Nickau. (shrink)

I argue that the medieval form of dialectical disputation known as obligationes can be viewed as a logical game of consistency maintenance. The game has two participants, Opponent and Respondent. Opponent puts forward a proposition P; Respondent must concede, deny or doubt, on the basis of inferential relations between P and previously accepted or denied propositions, or, in case there is none, on the basis of the common set of beliefs. Respondent loses the game if he concedes a contradictory set (...) of propositions. Opponent loses the game if Respondent is able to maintain consistency during the stipulated period of time. The obligational rules are here formalised by means of familiar notational devices, and the application of some game-theoretical concepts, such as (winning) strategy, moves, motivation, allows for an analysis of some crucial properties of the game. In particular, the primacy of inferential (syntactic) relations over semantic aspects and the dynamic character of obligations are outlined. (shrink)

The description of resources in game semantics has never achieved the simplicity and precision of linear logic, because of the misleading conception that linear logic is more primitive than game semantics. Here, we defend the opposite view, and thus advocate that game semantics is conceptually more primitive than linear logic. This revised point of view leads us to introduce tensor logic, a primitive variant of linear logic where negation is not involutive. After formulating its categorical semantics, we interpret tensor logic (...) in a model based on Conway games equipped with a notion of payoff, in order to reflect the various resource policies of the logic: linear, affine, relevant or exponential. (shrink)

This contribution discusses some problems of Pragma-Dialectics and explains them by its consensualistic view of the function of argumentation and by its philosophical underpinnings. It is suggested that these problems can be overcome by relying on a better epistemology and on an epistemological theory of argumentation. On the one hand Pragma-Dialectics takes unqualified consensus as the aim of argumentation, which is problematic, (Sect. 2) on the other it includes strong epistemological and rationalistic elements (Sect. 3). The problematic philosophical underpinnings of (...) Pragma-Dialectics, specifically Critical Rationalism as well as Logical Constructivism and Dialogic Logic of the Erlangen School, are among the sources of this incoherence (Sect. 4). A detailed critique of the Pragma-Dialectical discussion rules shows the negative consequences of this foundation and indicates how they could be avoided (Sects. 5, 6). (shrink)

I present a semantics for the language of first-order additive-multiplicative linear logic, i.e. the language of classical first-order logic with two sorts of disjunction and conjunction. The semantics allows us to capture intuitions often associated with linear logic or constructivism such as sentences = games, SENTENCES = resources or sentences = problems, where “truth” means existence of an effective winning strategy.The paper introduces a decidable first-order logic ET in the above language and gives a proof of its soundness and completeness (...) with respect to this semantics. Allowing noneffective strategies in the latter is shown to lead to classical logic.The semantics presented here is very similar to Blass's game semantics. Although there is no straightforward reduction between the two corresponding notions of validity, my completeness proof can likely be adapted to the logic induced by Blass's semantics to show its decidability, which was the main problem left open in Blass's paper.The reader needs to be familiar with classical logic and arithmetic. (shrink)

This note comments on the paper ‘Dialogue protocols for formal fallacies’ by Kacprzak and Yaskorska (this issue). Points discussed include the use of the notions of ‘claiming’, ‘conceding’ and ‘commitment’, and the role of Lorenzen dialogues as a device for checking whether a proposition is a tautology.

During the last forty or so years it has become popular to offer explanations of logical notions in terms of games. There is no doubt that many people find games helpful for understanding various logical phenomena. But we ask whether anything is really 'explained' by these accounts, and we analyse Paul Lorenzen's dialogue foundations for constructive logic as an example. The conclusion is that the value of games lies in their ability to provide helpful metaphors and representations, rather than in (...) any true conceptual analysis. In fact some of the standard explanations of logical notions in terms of competitive games simply don't work. /// [Erik C. W. Krabbe] In an attempt to redeem the Lorenzen-type dialogues from their detractors, it is perhaps best first to provide a survey of the various benefits these dialogues have been supposed to yield. This will be done in Section I. It will not be possible, within the confines of this paper, to scrutinize them all, but in Section II we shall delve deeper into the capacity of this type of dialogue to yield a model for the immanent criticism of philosophical positions. Section III will extend the concept of a dialogue in such a way as to conform better with our intuitive conceptions of what a rational discussion of a position should contain. This will be followed up by a concept of 'winning a dialogue' that takes position midway between the old conception of 'winning one play' and that of the full-fledged presentation of a winning strategy . Concepts of 'rational discussion' are thus shown to be, plausibly, more fundamental than those of proof. In Section IV, I shall discuss the specific problems about dialogical foundations put forward by Wilfrid Hodges. (shrink)

We introduce game-theoretic semantics for systems without the conveniences of either a De Morgan negation, or of distribution of conjunction over disjunction and conversely. Much of game playing rests on challenges issued by one player to the other to satisfy, or refute, a sentence, while forcing him/her to move to some other place in the game’s chessboard-like configuration. Correctness of the game-theoretic semantics is proven for both a training game, corresponding to Positive Lattice Logic and for more advanced games for (...) the logics of lattices with weak negation and modal operators. (shrink)

This book presents novel formalizations of three of the most important medieval logical theories: supposition, consequence and obligations. In an additional fourth part, an in-depth analysis of the concept of formalization is presented - a crucial concept in the current logical panorama, which as such receives surprisingly little attention.Although formalizations of medieval logical theories have been proposed earlier in the literature, the formalizations presented here are all based on innovative vantage points: supposition theories as algorithmic hermeneutics, theories of consequence analyzed (...) with tools borrowed from model-theory and two-dimensional semantics, and obligations as logical games. For this reason, this is perhaps the first time that these medieval logical theories are made fully accessible to the modern philosopher and logician who wishes to obtain a better grasp of them, but who has always been held back by the lack of appropriate ‘translations' into modern terms.Moreover, the book offers a reflection on the very nature of logic, a reflection that is prompted by the comparisons between medieval and modern logic, their similarities and dissimilarities. It is thus a contribution not only to the history of logic, but also to the philosophy of logic, the philosophy of language and semantics.The analysis of medieval logic is also relevant for the modern philosopher and logician in that, being the unifying methodology used across all disciplines at that time, logic really provided unity to science. It thus presents a unified model of scientific investigation, where logic plays the aggregating role. (shrink)

This volume presents mathematical game theory as an interface between logic and philosophy.

This thesis is on the history and philosophy of logic and semantics. Logic can be described as the ‘science of reasoning’, as it deals primarily with correct patterns of reasoning. However, logic as a discipline has undergone dramatic changes in the last two centuries: while for ancient and medieval philosophers it belonged essentially to the realm of language studies, it has currently become a sub-branch of mathematics. This thesis attempts to establish a dialogue between the modern and the medieval traditions (...) in logic, by means of ‘translations’ of the medieval logical theories into the modern framework of symbolic logic, i.e. formalizations. One of its conclusions is that, when properly understood within their own framework, the interest of medieval logical theories for modern investigations go beyond mere historical interest, but that a thorough conceptual analysis of such theories must be undertaken in order to avoid conceptual misprojections. While such translations of medieval into modern logic have been attempted before, the approach presented here is innovative in that attention is paid to the similarities as well as to the dissimilarities between the two traditions, and to what can be learned from the medieval masters for modern investigations in logic and semantics. (shrink)