Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Summary of the trip

Tomorrow I leave Vienna and head back to Amsterdam, and thus I thought it would be useful to put a brief recap of the important results of the last month:
  • Jesse and I finished up our extended paper on N, "A Curious Dialogical Logic and Its Composition Problem", and sent it off.
  • Significant new features have been added to the dialogues website, including the long-awaited ability to compute strategies interactively and the possibility of selecting arbitrary rulesets (from a pre-defined set of rules).
  • Our goal with Chris was to find out general conditions under which it can be proved that E is redundant; we have not gotten as far as we like, but the results of my various pokings and proddings on the subject are contained in "Some Remarks on the E rule in Dialogical Logic".
This research visit was funded by a grant from the European Science Foundation EUROCORES Short-Term Visit scheme within the framework of the ESF EUROCORES Programme entitled 'Modelling Intelligent Interaction', which we gratefully acknowledge.


  1. Congratulations, your blog and the dialogue website are fantastic! I found it very useful to understand how dialogical logic works.
    However, I have a question (maybe a beginners one). What happens when particle rules are modified? My problem is that the Opositor's rules seem more like a collaboration than an attack. Is it possible to have a more aggressive Opositor? Thanks.

  2. Can you say more about your collaboration idea? To me the particle rules are the common ground between Proponent and Opponent, whereas structural rules can tip the balance one way or another. Try playing some dialogue games following the skeletal ruleset, which consists only of particle rules and minimal structural rules (Proponent goes first, moves alternate between players). Or try playing with a ruleset where Proponent is restricted in some way that Opponent is not.

    If you have a concrete proposal for a new rule (or rules), please do tell me. It's not too difficult to extend the site with new rules.

    Thanks for checking out our work!

  3. Hi Daniel,

    Thanks for the comment! The collaborative aspect of Opponent in the particle rules is exactly what Hodges complains about when he discusses dialogical logic in his paper "Dialogue Foundations", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary volume 75 (2001): 17-49 (a companion to a piece by Erik C. W. Krabbe which follows immediately). There Hodges offers some suggestions of how the Opponent could be made more opposing rather than collaborating, though I don't know if anyone has ever tried to implement these ideas into a Lorenzen-type dialogue system.

    Otherwise, in general the only ways that have been considered to modify the particle rules have been either to add new ones (for new operators), or to interdefine the connectives, e.g., negation in terms of implication and falsum.