Game Semantics, Quantifiers and Logical Omniscience

IF 0.6 Q2 LOGIC Logic and Logical Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-06-13 DOI:10.12775/llp.2022.021
Bruno Ramos Mendonça
{"title":"Game Semantics, Quantifiers and Logical Omniscience","authors":"Bruno Ramos Mendonça","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Logical omniscience states that the knowledge set of ordinary rational agents is closed for its logical consequences. Although epistemic logicians in general judge this principle unrealistic, there is no consensus on how it should be restrained. The challenge is conceptual: we must find adequate criteria for separating obvious logical consequences (consequences for which epistemic closure certainly holds) from non-obvious ones. Non-classical game-theoretic semantics has been employed in this discussion with relative success. On the one hand, with urn semantics [15], an expressive fragment of classical game semantics that weakens the dependence relations between quantifiers occurring in a formula, we can formalize, for a broad array of examples, epistemic scenarios in which an individual ignores the validity of some first-order sentence. On the other hand, urn semantics offers a disproportionate restriction of logical omniscience. Therefore, an improvement of this system is needed to obtain a better solution of the problem. In this paper, I argue that our linguistic competence in using quantifiers requires a sort of basic hypothetical logical knowledge that can be formulated as follows: when inquiring after the truth-value of ∀xφ, an individual might be unaware of all substitutional instances this sentence accepts, but at least she must know that, if an element a is given, then ∀xφ holds only if φ(x/a) is true. This thesis accepts game-theoretic formalization in terms of a refinement of urn semantics. I maintain that the system so obtained (US+) affords an improved solution of the logical omniscience problem. To do this, I characterize first-order theoremhood in US+. As a consequence of this result, we will see that the ideal reasoner depicted by US+ only knows the validity of first-order formulas whose Herbrand witnesses can be trivially found, a fact that provides strong evidence that our refinement of urn semantics captures a relevant sense of logical obviousness.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Logical omniscience states that the knowledge set of ordinary rational agents is closed for its logical consequences. Although epistemic logicians in general judge this principle unrealistic, there is no consensus on how it should be restrained. The challenge is conceptual: we must find adequate criteria for separating obvious logical consequences (consequences for which epistemic closure certainly holds) from non-obvious ones. Non-classical game-theoretic semantics has been employed in this discussion with relative success. On the one hand, with urn semantics [15], an expressive fragment of classical game semantics that weakens the dependence relations between quantifiers occurring in a formula, we can formalize, for a broad array of examples, epistemic scenarios in which an individual ignores the validity of some first-order sentence. On the other hand, urn semantics offers a disproportionate restriction of logical omniscience. Therefore, an improvement of this system is needed to obtain a better solution of the problem. In this paper, I argue that our linguistic competence in using quantifiers requires a sort of basic hypothetical logical knowledge that can be formulated as follows: when inquiring after the truth-value of ∀xφ, an individual might be unaware of all substitutional instances this sentence accepts, but at least she must know that, if an element a is given, then ∀xφ holds only if φ(x/a) is true. This thesis accepts game-theoretic formalization in terms of a refinement of urn semantics. I maintain that the system so obtained (US+) affords an improved solution of the logical omniscience problem. To do this, I characterize first-order theoremhood in US+. As a consequence of this result, we will see that the ideal reasoner depicted by US+ only knows the validity of first-order formulas whose Herbrand witnesses can be trivially found, a fact that provides strong evidence that our refinement of urn semantics captures a relevant sense of logical obviousness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
游戏语义、量词和逻辑全知
逻辑全知是指普通理性主体的知识集由于其逻辑结果是封闭的。尽管认知逻辑学家普遍认为这一原则是不现实的,但对于如何限制这一原则却没有达成共识。挑战是概念性的:我们必须找到适当的标准来区分明显的逻辑结果(认知闭包肯定成立的结果)和非明显的结果。非经典博弈论语义在这一讨论中得到了相对成功的应用。一方面,使用urn语义[15](经典游戏语义的一个表达片段,它削弱了公式中出现的量词之间的依赖关系),我们可以形式化一个广泛的例子,即个人忽略某些一阶句子有效性的认知场景。另一方面,urn语义对逻辑全知性提供了不成比例的限制。因此,为了更好地解决这一问题,需要对该系统进行改进。在本文中,我论证我们使用量词的语言能力需要一种基本的假设逻辑知识,它可以表述如下:当询问∀xφ的真值时,一个个体可能不知道这个句子接受的所有替代实例,但至少她必须知道,如果给定一个元素a,那么∀xφ只有在φ(x/a)为真时才成立。本文采用博弈论的形式,对urn语义进行了改进。我认为这样得到的系统(US+)为逻辑全知问题提供了一个改进的解决方案。为了做到这一点,我描述了US+中的一阶定理。作为这一结果的结果,我们将看到US+所描述的理想推理者只知道一阶公式的有效性,而这些公式的Herbrand证人可以轻易地找到,这一事实提供了强有力的证据,证明我们对urn语义的改进捕获了相关的逻辑显而易见性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
40.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Paradoxes versus Contradictions in Logic of Sentential Operators Constructive Logic is Connexive and Contradictory KD45 with Propositional Quantifiers Logical Forms, Substitutions and Information Types Logical Forms: Validity and Variety of Formalizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1