(implies (implies (and p p) q) (implies (and p p) q))Or, in readable fashion:

(((P ∧ P) → Q) → ((P ∧ P) → Q))I'm hoping that this example is small enough that the dialogues website can compute both the D and E strategies for me.

---

ETA: This is still too complicated a formula for the site, so I calculated the D and E strategies by hand; they do differ, but only by the final two moves in two of the three branches [ETA, 23Jun: This is wrong; I did not finish filling out one of the branches]. I came up with a more interesting example:(implies (implies (and p p) (implies p q)) (implies (and p p) (implies p q)))Or, readable:

(((P ∧ P) → (P → Q) → ((P ∧ P) → (P → Q))Here, not only does the game

*not*immediately end when Pro asserts an atom (he does so in the attack on an implication, which means that Opp still has the possibility to defend), but the D and E strategies differ by the final four moves in two of the branches. If I can think of a way to nicely represent the trees in HTML, I'll try to post all four strategies here.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment