First, structural rules which are wholly player neutral will result in the inconsistent logic: Proponent has a winning strategy for every atom p, so at least some asymmetry/nonneutrality in the rules is required.I am curious to see if he addresses this problem in the remainder of the talk; if he doesn't, I intend to ask him about it. Curiously, at least one version of particle rules for FDE-negation that he introduces is not player neutral. --- I asked my question; I don't think I was able to express myself clearly, because his answer was "of course you have to have some asymmetry" in order to build a logic. So I'm not sure what his motivation for arguing for player neutrality is, nor how he gets the required asymmetry from his symmetric particle rules.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Live Blogging: ProDi Day 1
Jesse and I are currently in Tübingen for the Proofs and Dialogues workshop. I missed the first talk (Helge Rückert, "The Conception of Validity in Dialogical Logic"), and arrived at the tail end of the second talk (Catarina Dutilh Novaes, "Every Proof is (and isn't) a Dialogue"), so I don't have anything to say. Shahid Rahman, "Towards Dialogical Harmony", is presenting material related to his paper "Negation in the Logic of First Degree Entailment and Tonk. A Dialogical Study", comin out this year in G. Primiero et al., (Anti)Realism. The Realism-Realism Debate in the Age of Alternative Logics (Springer). I read this paper last fall and it was at times interesting and at times frustrating. His concept of "dialogical harmony" actually overlaps quite a bit with our investigations into different types of neutrality last fall. In particular, he accepts player independence. Now, the argument I gave back in August against player independence was: