On Semantic Gamification

The purpose of this essay is to study the extent in which the semantics for different logical systems can be represented game theoretically. I will begin by considering different definitions of what it means to gamify a semantics, and show completeness and limitative results. In particular, I will argue that under a proper definition of gamification, all finitely algebraizable logics can be gamified, as well as some infinitely algebraizable ones (like Łukasiewicz) and some non-algebraizable (like intuitionistic and van Fraassen supervaluation logic)

The Doxastic Interpretation of Team Semantics

We advance a doxastic interpretation for many of the logical connectives considered in Dependence Logic and in its extensions, and we argue that Team Semantics is a natural framework for reasoning about beliefs and belief updates

Informational Semantics, Non-Deterministic Matrices and Feasible Deduction

AbstractWe present a unifying semantic and proof-theoretical framework for investigating depth-bounded approximations to Boolean Logic in which the number of nested applications of a single structural rule, representing the classical Principle of Bivalence (classical cut), is bounded above by a fixed natural number. These approximations provide a hierarchy of tractable logical systems that indefinitely converge to classical propositional logic. The operational rules are shared by all approximation systems and are justified by an "informational semantics" whereby the meaning of a logical operator is specified solely in terms of the information that is actually possessed by an agent

Worlds and Objects of Epistemic Space : A study of Jaakko Hintikka's modal semantics

This study focuses on meaning and knowledge by assessing a distinctive view regarding their relation, namely the modal view of Jaakko Hintikka. The development of this view has not been previously scrutinized. By paying close attention to the texts of Hintikka, I show that, despite the extensive deployment of mathematical tools, the articulation of the view remained intuitive and vague. The study calls attention to several points at which Hintikka omits relevant details or disregards foundational questions. Attempts are made to articulate Hintikka’s certain ideas in a more specific manner, and new problems that result are identified. The central claim argued for is that Hintikka’s exposition was unsatisfactory in many respects and hence the view, as it stands, falls short in its explanatory scope compared to current theories in the intersection of logic, semantics, and epistemology. However, I argue that, despite its shortcomings, the prospects of the modal view are not exhausted. This is verified by introducing a new interpretation of the framework and by sketching new applications relevant in philosophy of language and in epistemology. It is also pointed out that certain early advances of the view closely resemble, and therefore anticipate, the central tenets of the currently influential two-dimensional approaches in logic and semantics.Tutkimus paneutuu merkityksen ja tiedon käsitteisiin tarkastelemalla Jaakko Hintikan työtä modaalisen semantiikan parissa. Tutkimus osoittaa, että Hintikka jätti modaalisen semantiikan kehitystyössään avoimeksi useita perustavia kysymyksiä ja yksityiskohtia. Tutkimuksessa pyritään artikuloimaan täsmällisemmin joitakin Hintikan näkemyksiä, ja tunnistetaan uusia syntyviä ongelmia. Keskeisenä väitteenä on, että Hintikan teoreettinen työ jäi monilta osin epätyydyttäväksi, ja siten hänen modaalinen näkemyksensä ei yllä selitysvoimaltaan ja sovelluspotentiaaliltaan samalle tasolle kuin nykyiset filosofiset teoriat, jotka operoivat logiikan, semantiikan ja epistemologian risteyskohdissa. Tästä huolimatta tutkimuksessa argumentoidaan, että Hintikan teoreettinen viitekehys tarjoaa myös uusia kiinnostavia näköaloja. Tämä todennetaan tarjoamalla Hintikan viitekehykselle uusi tulkinta, ja soveltamalla sitä uusiin kielifilosofisiin kysymyksiin. Tutkimus nostaa myös esiin kirjallisuudessa ohitetun tosiasian, että Hintikan työ ennakoi tärkeällä tavalla nykyisin vaikutusvaltaisia kaksi-dimensionaalisia lähestymistapoja logiikassa ja semantiikassa

Achieving while maintaining:A logic of knowing how with intermediate constraints

In this paper, we propose a ternary knowing how operator to express that the agent knows how to achieve $\phi$ given $\psi$ while maintaining $\chi$ in-between. It generalizes the logic of goal-directed knowing how proposed by Yanjing Wang 2015 'A logic of knowing how'. We give a sound and complete axiomatization of this logic.Comment: appear in Proceedings of ICLA 201

Logic and Commonsense Reasoning: Lecture Notes

MasterThese are the lecture notes of a course on logic and commonsense reasoning given to master students in philosophy of the University of Rennes 1. N.B.: Some parts of these lectures notes are sometimes largely based on or copied verbatim from publications of other authors. When this is the case, these parts are mentioned at the end of each chapter in the section “Further reading”

AGM 25 years: twenty-five years of research in belief change

The 1985 paper by Carlos Alchourrón (1931–1996), Peter Gärdenfors, and David Makinson (AGM), “On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions” was the starting-point of a large and rapidly growing literature that employs formal models in the investigation of changes in belief states and databases. In this review, the first twenty five years of this development are summarized. The topics covered include equivalent characterizations of AGM operations, extended representations of the belief states, change operators not included in the original framework, iterated change, applications of the model, its connections with other formal frameworks, computatibility of AGM operations, and criticism of the model.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Logic, Reasoning, Argumentation: Insights from the Wild

This article provides a brief selective overview and discussion of recent research into natural language argumentation that may inform the study of human reasoning on the assumption that an episode of argumentation issues an invitation to accept a corresponding inference. As this research shows, arguers typically seek to establish new consequences based on prior information. And they typically do so vis-à-vis a real or an imagined opponent, or an opponent-position, in ways that remain sensitive to considerations of context, audiences, and goals. Deductively valid inferences remain a limiting case of such reasoning. In view of these insights, it may appear less surprising that allegedly “irrational” behavior can regularly be produced in experimental settings that expose subjects to standardized reasoning tasks