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)

Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...) dialogue, and of infinite dialogues, is treated in section 1.4. Other options, e.g., as to the number of attacks allowed with respect to each statement, are listed in section 1.5. Section 1.6 explains the concept of a chain of arguments.From section 2 onward four types of dialectic systems are picked out for closer study: D, E, Di and Ei. After a preliminary section on dialogue sequents and winning strategies, the equivalence of derivability in intuitionistic logic and the existence of a winning strategy (for the Proponent) on the strength of Ei is shown by simple inductive proofs. (shrink)

Dialogue semantics for logic are two-player logic games between a Proponent who puts forward a logical formula φ 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, sometimes 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. (shrink)

We present a new proof of soundness/completeness of tableaux with respect to dialogical games in Classical First-Order Logic. As far as we know it is the first thorough result for dialogical games where finiteness of plays is guaranteed by means of what we call repetition ranks.

Even when inconsistencies are present in our premise set, we can sensibly distinguish between good and bad arguments relying on these premises. In making this distinction, the inconsistency-adaptive approach of Batens strikes a particularly nice balance between inconsistency-tolerance and inferential strength. In this paper, we use the machinery of Batens’ approach to extend the paraconsistent approach to dialogical logic as developed by Rahman and Carnielli. In bringing these frameworks closer together, we obtain a dynamic mechanism for the systematic study of (...) dialogues in which two parties exchange arguments over a central claim, in the possible presence of inconsistencies. (shrink)

Model-theoretic proofs of functional completenes along the lines of [McCullough 1971, Journal of Symbolic Logic 36, 15–20] are given for various constructive modal propositional logics with strong negation.

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)

Section 1 contains a survey of options in constructing a formal system of dialogue rules. The distinction between material and formal systems is discussed (section 1.1). It is stressed that the material systems are, in several senses, formal as well. In section 1.2 variants as to language form (choices of logical constants and logical rules) are pointed out. Section 1.3 is concerned with options as to initial positions and the permissibility of attacks on elementary statements. The problem of ending a (...) dialogue, and of infinite dialogues, is treated in section 1.4. Other options, e.g., as to the number of attacks allowed with respect to each statement, are listed in section 1.5. Section 1.6 explains the concept of a chain of arguments.From section 2 onward four types of dialectic systems are picked out for closer study: D, E, Di and Ei. After a preliminary section on dialogue sequents and winning strategies, the equivalence of derivability in intuitionistic logic and the existence of a winning strategy (for the Proponent) on the strength of Ei is shown by simple inductive proofs. (shrink)

This contribution gives an outline of a game theoretic foundation of the logical structure inherent to the language of a science. Game theoretic approaches to a language were considered and developed by several authors. In this volume Saarinen examines the game theoretic semantics due to Hintikka and the dialog-game semantics due to Lorenzen. In the following I shall not re-examine the approaches by Hintikka and Lorenzen. However, some remarks about Lorenzen’s semantics are necessary since the game theoretic approach considered here (...) is essentially based on the idea of Lorenzen to use dialog-games for a foundation of logic.A systematic game theoretic presentation of the rules of a dialog game was given at first by Lorenz. Starting with certain structural rules which constitute the general scheme of a dialog, a further dialog rule is necessary in order to guarantee a finite game. (shrink)

The paper introduces a semantics for the language of classical first order logic supplemented with the additional operators and . This semantics understands formulas as tasks. An agent , working as a slave for its master , can carry out the task αβ if it can carry out any one of the two tasks α, β, depending on which of them was requested by the master; similarly, it can carry out xα if it can carry out α for any particular (...) value for x selected by the master; an agent can carry out α→β if it can carry out β as long as it has, as a slave , an agent who carries out α; finally, carrying out P, where P is an atomic formula, simply means making P true; in particular, is a task that no agent can carry out. When restricted to the language of classical logic, the meaning of formulas is isomorphic to their classical meaning, which makes our semantics a conservative extension of classical semantics.This semantics can claim to be a formalization of the resource philosophy associated with linear logic, if resources are understood as agents carrying out tasks. The classical operators of our language correspond to the multiplicative operators of linear logic, while and correspond to the additive conjunction and universal quantifier, respectively.Our formalism may also have a potential to be used in AI as an alternative logic of planning and action. Its main appeal is that it is immune to the frame problem and the knowledge preconditions problem.The paper axiomatically defines a logic L in the above language and proves its soundness and completeness with respect to the task semantics in the following intuitive sense: L α iff α can be carried out by an agent who has nothing but its intelligence for carrying out tasks. This logic is shown to be semidecidable in the full language and decidable when the classical quantifier is forbidden in it. (shrink)