Proving Propositional Tautologies in a Natural Dialogue

• Autorzy: Yaskorska O. , Budzynska K. , Kacprzak M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The paper proposes a dialogue system LND which brings together and unifies two traditions in studying dialogue as a game: the dialogical logic introduced by Lorenzen; and persuasion dialogue games as specified by Prakken. The first approach allows the representation of formal dialogues in which the validity of argument is the topic discussed. The second tradition has focused on natural dialogues examining, e.g., informal fallacies typical in real-life communication. Our goal is to unite these two approaches in order to allow communicating agents to benefit from the advantages of both, i.e., to equip them with the ability not only to persuade each other about facts, but also to prove that a formula used in an argument is a classical propositional tautology. To this end, we propose a new description of the dialogical logic which meets the requirements of Prakken's generic specification for natural dialogues, and we introduce rules allowing to embed a formal dialogue in a natural one. We also show the correspondence result between the original and the new version of the dialogical logic, i.e., we show that a winning strategy for a proponent in the original version of the dialogical logic means a winning strategy for a proponent in the new version, and conversely.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

pleonasm; dialogue; communication; mathematical formulas; computer systems; computer science

• Wydawca: IOS Press
• Czasopismo: Fundamenta Informaticae
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 128, nr 1-2
• Strony: 239--253
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 22 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Yaskorska O.

• Graduate School for Social Research, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

autor

Budzynska K.

• Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

autor

Kacprzak M.

• Department of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology, Bialystok, Poland

Bibliografia

• [1] Austin, J.: How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.
• [2] Black, E., Hunter, A.: An inquiry dialogue system, Autonomous Agent Multi-Agent Systems, 18, 2009, 173-209.
• [3] Copi, I. M.: Introduction to Logic, Macmillan Publishing, 1978.
• [4] Dunin-Keplicz, B., Strachocka, A., Szałas, A., Verbrugge, R.: A paraconsistent approach to speech acts, ArgMAS’2012: 9th International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 2012, 59-78.
• [5] Dunin-Keplicz, B., Strachocka, A., Verbrugge,R.: Deliberation dialogues during multiagent planning, LNCS, (6804), 2011, 170-181.
• [6] van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R.: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
• [7] Hamblin, C.: Fallacies, Methuen, London, 1970.
• [8] Hintikka, K. J. J.: Language-games for Quantifiers, Americal Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series 2: Studies in Logical Theory, 1968, 46-72, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
• [9] Hodges, W.: Logic and games, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009.
• [10] Keiff, L.: Dialogical logic, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011.
• [11] Lorenz, K., Lorenzen, P.: Dialogische Logik, WBG. Darmstadt, 1978.
• [12] Mackenzie, J.: Four Dialogue Systems, Studia Logica, 49(4), 1990, 567-583.
• [13] Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Logical foundations and complexity of 4QL, a query language with unrestricted negation, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 21(2), 2011, 211-232.
• [14] Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation, Journal of Logic and Computation, (15), 2005, 1009-1040.
• [15] Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21, 2006, 163188.
• [16] Rahman, S., Tulenheimo, T.: From games to dialogues and back: towards a general frame for validity, in: Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy (O. Majer, A. Pietarinen, T. Tulenheimo, Eds.), vol. 15 of Logic, Epistemology and the Unity of Science, Dordrecht: Springer, 2006, page 153-208.
• [17] Searle, J., Vanderveken, D.: Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
• [18] Stegmuller, W.: Remarks on the completeness of logical systems relative to the validity of concepts of P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1964, 81-112.
• [19] Visser, J., Bex, F., Reed, C., Garssen, B.: Correspondence between the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Model and the Argument Interchange Format, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 23(36), 2011, 189-224.
• [20] Walton, D. N., Krabbe, E. C. W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, State University of N.Y. Press, 1995.
• [21] Wilson, W. K.: Formal fallacy, in: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nded.), 1999, 316-317.
• [22] Woods, J., Walton, D.: Fallacies: Selected Papers: 1972-1982, London, King’s College, 2007.