Asking and Answering

Questions are everywhere and the ubiquitous activities of asking and answering, as most human activities, are susceptible to failure - at least from time to time. This volume offers several current approaches to the systematic study of questions and the surrounding activities and works toward supporting and improving these activities. The contributors formulate general problems for a formal treatment of questions, investigate specific kinds of questions, compare different frameworks with regard to how they regulate the activities of asking and answering of questions, and situate these activities in a wider framework of cognitive/epistemic discourse. From the perspectives of logic, linguistics, epistemology, and philosophy of language emerges a report on the state of the art of the theory of questions

Dialogues as a Dynamic Framework for Logic

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.LEI Universiteit LeidenPhilosoph

Proof Search in Multi-Agent Dialogues for Modal Logic

In computer science, and also in philosophy, modal logics play an important role in various areas. They can be used to model knowledge structures among software-agents, behaviour of computer systems, or ontologies. They also provide mathematical tools to perform reasoning in these models, e.g., to extract common knowledge of agents, check whether security-relevant problems might occur when running a program, or to detect contradictions in a set of terminological definitions. Intuitionistic or constructive propositional logic can be considered as a special kind of modal logic. Constructive modal logics, as a combination of intuitionistic propositional logic and classical modal logics, describe a family of modal systems which are, compared to the classical variant, more restrictive concerning the validity of formulas. To prove validity of a statement formalized in such a logic, various reasoning procedures (also called calculi) have been investigated. There are especially many variants of sequent and tableau systems which can be used easily to find proofs by applying given syntactical rules one after another. Sometimes there are different possibilities to find a proof for the same formula within the same calculus. It also happens that a bad choice of non-invertible rule applications at the wrong time makes it impossible to finish the proof successfully, although the formula is provable. For this reason, a normalization of deductions in a calculus is desired. This restricts the possibilities to apply rules arbitrarily and emphasizes the situations in which significant, non-invertible rule applications are necessary. Such a normalization is enforced in so-called focused sequent systems. Another attempt to find a normalized calculus leads to dialogical logic, a game-theoretic reasoning technique. Usually, two players, one proponent and one opponent, argue about an assertion, expressed as a formula and stated by the proponent at the beginning of the play. The kinds of arguments, namely attacks and defences, are bound to special game rules. These are designed in such a way that the proponent has a winning strategy in the game if and only if his initial statement is a valid formula. The dialogical approach is very flexible as the game rules can be adjusted easily. Sets of rules exist to perform reasoning in many different kinds of logic, however proving soundness and completeness of dialogical calculi is complex and, if at all, often only considered very roughly in the literature. The standard two-player dialogues do not have much potential to enforce normalization like focus sequent systems. However, it turns out that introducing further proponent-players who fight against one opponent in a round-based setting leads to a normalization as described above. The flexibility of two-player games is largely preserved in multi-proponent dialogues. Other ordinary sequent systems can easily be transferred into the dialectic setting to achieve a normalization. Further, the round-based scheduling induces a method to parallelize the reasoning process. Modifying the game rules makes it possible to construct new intermediate or even more restrictive logics. In this work, dialogical systems with multiple proponents are presented for intuitionistic propositional logic and modal logics S4 and CS4. Starting with the former one, it is shown that the normalization can be transferred easily to both the latter systems. Informal game rules are introduced and, to make them concrete and unambiguous, translated into the dialogical sequent-style calculi DiaSeqI, DiaSeqS4, and DiaSeqCS4. An extra system for intuitionistic logic, which guarantees termination in proof searches, even if the target formula is not valid, is also provided. Soundness and completeness of all these presented dialogical sequent calculi is proven formally, by showing that it is always possible to translate derivations in the game-oriented approach into another sound and complete sequent system and vice versa. Thereby, a new (ordinary) multi-conclusion sequent calculus for CS4 is introduced for which adequateness is shown, too. The multi-proponent dialogical systems of this work are compared to different sequent calculi and other dialogical attempts found in literature. A comprehensive survey of such approaches is also part of this thesis

Proof-theoretic Semantics for Intuitionistic Multiplicative Linear Logic

This work is the first exploration of proof-theoretic semantics for a substructural logic. It focuses on the base-extension semantics (B-eS) for intuitionistic multiplicative linear logic (IMLL). The starting point is a review of Sandqvist’s B-eS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL), for which we propose an alternative treatment of conjunction that takes the form of the generalized elimination rule for the connective. The resulting semantics is shown to be sound and complete. This motivates our main contribution, a B-eS for IMLL , in which the definitions of the logical constants all take the form of their elimination rule and for which soundness and completeness are established

A Unifying Field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic.

The author makes an introduction to non-standard analysis, then extends the dialectics to “neutrosophy” – which became a new branch of philosophy. This new concept helps in generalizing the intuitionistic, paraconsistent, dialetheism, fuzzy logic to “neutrosophic logic” – which is the first logic that comprises paradoxes and distinguishes between relative and absolute truth. Similarly, the fuzzy set is generalized to “neutrosophic set”. Also, the classical and imprecise probabilities are generalized to “neutrosophic probability”

A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS

In 1960s Abraham Robinson has developed the non-standard analysis, a formalization of analysis and a branch of mathematical logic, which rigorously defines the infinitesimals

A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS - 6th ed.

It was a surprise for me when in 1995 I received a manuscript from the mathematician, experimental writer and innovative painter Florentin Smarandache, especially because the treated subject was of philosophy - revealing paradoxes - and logics. He had generalized the fuzzy logic, and introduced two new concepts: a) “neutrosophy” – study of neutralities as an extension of dialectics; b) and its derivative “neutrosophic”, such as “neutrosophic logic”, “neutrosophic set”, “neutrosophic probability”, and “neutrosophic statistics” and thus opening new ways of research in four fields: philosophy, logics, set theory, and probability/statistics. It was known to me his setting up in 1980’s of a new literary and artistic avant-garde movement that he called “paradoxism”, because I received some books and papers dealing with it in order to review them for the German journal “Zentralblatt fur Mathematik”. It was an inspired connection he made between literature/arts and science, philosophy. We started a long correspondence with questions and answers. Because paradoxism supposes multiple value sentences and procedures in creation, antisense and non-sense, paradoxes and contradictions, and it’s tight with neutrosophic logic, I would like to make a small presentation