Dialogical logic is a game-theoretical approach to logic. Logic is studied with the help of certain games, which can be thought of as idealized argumentations. Two players, the Proponent, who puts forward the initial thesis and tries to defend it, and the Opponent, who tries to attack the Proponent’s thesis, alternately utter argumentative moves according to certain rules. For a long time the dialogical approach had been worked out only for classical and intuitionistic logic. The seven papers of this dissertation (...) show that this narrowness was uncalled for. The initial paper presents an overview and serves as an introduction to the other papers. Those papers are related by one central theme. As each of them presents dialogical formulations of a different non-classical logic, they show that dialogical logic constitutes a powerful and flexible general framework for the development and study of various logical formalisms and combinations thereof. As such it is especially attractive to logical pluralists that reject the idea of “the single correct logic”. The collection contains treatments of free logic, modal logic, relevance logic, connexive logic, linear logic, and multi-valued logic. (shrink)

Many of the discussions about conditionals can best be put as follows:can those conditionals that involve an entailment relation be formulatedwithin a formal system? The reasons for the failure of the classical approachto entailment have usually been that they ignore the meaning connectionbetween antecedent and consequent in a valid entailment. One of the firsttheories in the history of logic about meaning connection resulted from thestoic discussions on tightening the relation between the If- and the Then-parts of conditionals, which in this (...) context was called. This theory gave a justification for the validity of what we todayexpress through the formulae ¬ and ¬. Hugh MacColl and, more recently, Storrs McCall searched for a formal system in which the validity ofthese formulae could be expressed. Unfortunately neither of the resulting systems is very satisfactory. In this paper we introduce dialogical games with the help of a new connexive If-Then (), the structural rules of which allow the Proponent to develop winning strategies not only for the above-mentioned connexive theses but also for ¬ and ¬. Further on, we developthe corresponding tableau systems and conclude with some remarks on possibleperspectives and consequences of the dialogical approach to connexivity including the loss of uniform substitution leading to a new concept of logical form. (shrink)

There is an argument (first presented by Fitch), which tries to show by formal means that the anti-realistic thesis that every truth might possibly be known, is equivalent to the unacceptable thesis that every truth is actually known (at some time in the past, present or future). First, the argument is presented and some proposals for the solution of Fitch's Paradox are briefly discussed. Then, by using Wehmeier's modal logic with subjunctive marks (S5*), it is shown how the derivation can (...) be blocked if one respects adequately the distinction between the indicative and the subjunctive mood. Essentially, this proposal amounts to the one by Edgington which was formulated with the help of the actuality-operator. Finally it is shown how the criticisms by Williamson against Edgington can be answered by the formulation of a new conception of possible knowledge that \alpha (thereby \alpha being in the indicative mood and thus referring to the actual world). This conception is based on the concept of same de re knowledge in different possible worlds. (shrink)

Many of the discussions about conditionals can best be put as follows:can those conditionals that involve an entailment relation be formulatedwithin a formal system? The reasons for the failure of the classical approachto entailment have usually been that they ignore the meaning connectionbetween antecedent and consequent in a valid entailment. One of the firsttheories in the history of logic about meaning connection resulted from thestoic discussions on tightening the relation between the If- and the Then-parts of conditionals, which in this (...) context was called συναρτησις(connection). This theory gave a justification for the validity of what we todayexpress through the formulae ¬(a → ¬ a) and ¬(¬ a → a). Hugh MacColl and, more recently, Storrs McCall (from 1877 to 1906 and from1963 to 1975 respectively) searched for a formal system in which the validity ofthese formulae could be expressed. Unfortunately neither of the resulting systems is very satisfactory. In this paper we introduce dialogical games with the help of a new connexive If-Then (“→”), the structural rules of which allow the Proponent to develop (formal) winning strategies not only for the above-mentioned connexive theses but also for (a → b) → ¬(a → ¬ b) and (a → b) → ¬(¬ a → b). Further on, we developthe corresponding tableau systems and conclude with some remarks on possibleperspectives and consequences of the dialogical approach to connexivity including the loss of uniform substitution leading to a new concept of logical form. (shrink)

We investigate and compare two major approaches to enhancing the expressive capacities of modal languages, namely the addition of subjunctive markers on the one hand, and the addition of scope-bearing actuality operators, on the other. It turns out that the subjunctive marker approach is not only every bit as versatile as the actuality operator approach, but that it in fact outperforms its rival in the context of cross-world predication.

Non-classical views about important issues in logic and its philosophy are a distinctive trait of Shahid Rahman's work. This volume has been designed, on the occasion of his 50th birthday, as a gathering place for unconventional approaches, original ideas and attempts to question well-established standards. Some of the world top philosophers and logicians contributed to a brilliant collection of papers, some of which doubtlessly leave their mark on the work to come in logic and in philosophy of formal sciences. Contributors (...) are: Philippe Balbiani, Diderik Batens, Johan van Benthem, Giacomo Bonanno, Walter A. Carnielli, Newton C. A. Da Costa, Michel Crubellier, Francisco A. Doria, Dov M. Gabbay, Olivier Gasquet, Gerhard Heinzmann, Andreas Herzig, Jaakko Hintikka, Justine Jacot, Reinhard Kahle, Erik C. W. Krabbe, Decio Krause, Franck Lihoreau, Kuno Lorenz, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Graham Priest, Stephen Read, Manuel Rebuschi, Greg Restall, Gabriel Sandu, Gerhard Schurz, Francois Schwarzentruber, Yaroslav Shramko, Goran Sundholm, John Symons, Christian Thiel, Nicolas Troquard, Tero Tulenheimo, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Daniel Vanderveken, Yde Venema, Heinrich Wansing, Jan Wolenski and John Woods. (shrink)

Being a pragmatic and not a referential approach to semantics, dialogi-cal logic does not understand semantics as mapping names, propositions and relationships into the real world to obtain an abstract counterpart of it, but as dealing (handeln) with them in a particular way. This allows a very simple formulation of free logic the core of which can be expressed in a nutshell, namely: in an argumentation, it sometimes makes sense to restrict the introduction of singular terms in the context of (...) quantification to a formal use o f them. That is, the proponent is allowed to use a constant if f this constant has been explicitly conceded by the opponent. More technically, we show a new, dialogical way to build free logic systems fo r first-order logic with classical and intuitionistic features and present their corresponding tableaux. I. In tro d u ctio n I I. F r e e logics ON DIALOGUES A ND ONTOLOGY THE DIAL OGICAL APPROACH TO FREE LOGIC The proposition "God does not exist" contains a paradox sometimes referred to as Plato's beard: if God does not exist and the proposition should be true, standard referential semantics fo r quantified logic fails to give meaning to the name "God". But, given compositionality, since the meaning of a sentence is combined from the meanings o f its parts,-G o d d o e s not exist" does not evaluate. It is easy to see that related difficulties appear in every formula that contains singular terms. In standard logic, it is impossible to state that God is either good or evil without presupposing his existence, or that the round * My work on this article has been supported by the Fritz-Thyssen-Stiftung which I wish to thank expressly. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est de montrer comment les logiques dites multivalentes peuvent être formulées dans le cadre de la logique dialogique. Pour formuler les règles de particule pour ces logiques on introduit l’idée de différents modes d’assertion. En donnant ensuite les règles de particule et les règles structurelles appropriées, on peut reconstruire dialogiquement les systèmes standards de logiques multivalentes. Cela est fait explicitement pour la logique `a trois valeurs de Łukasiewicz (L3c). En remplaçant la règle structurelle classique par (...) sa contrepartie intuitionniste on obtient des versions intuitionnistes de systèmes multivalents (par exemple L3i). Les systèmes dialogiques multivalents L3c et L3i sont illustrés par quelques exemples et pour conclure on formule les tableaux stratégiques correspondants. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est de montrer comment les logiques dites multivalentes peuvent être formulées dans le cadre de la logique dialogique. Pour formuler les règles de particule pour ces logiques on introduit l’idée de différents modes d’assertion. En donnant ensuite les règles de particule et les règles structurelles appropriées, on peut reconstruire dialogiquement les systèmes standards de logiques multivalentes. Cela est fait explicitement pour la logique `a trois valeurs de Łukasiewicz (L3c). En remplaçant la règle structurelle classique par (...) sa contrepartie intuitionniste on obtient des versions intuitionnistes de systèmes multivalents (par exemple L3i). Les systèmes dialogiques multivalents L3c et L3i sont illustrés par quelques exemples et pour conclure on formule les tableaux stratégiques correspondants. (shrink)