tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5371132400241072988.post2570851808527013985..comments2012-10-16T02:22:45.319-07:00Comments on TONIGHT: Proponent v. Opponent: Rule neutrality, rule naturalityJesse Alamahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18300729364134604326noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5371132400241072988.post-47128487795795138942010-08-10T10:02:51.639-07:002010-08-10T10:02:51.639-07:00How about "move neutrality" as a name fo...How about "move neutrality" as a name for this kind of condition? It makes sense to me, because we're using first-order quantification. I might add that the proposal could be sharpened a bit: the rules that interest us all have the form "for every move...". That is, they all begin with a universal quantification over the sequence of all previous moves.Jesse Alamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300729364134604326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5371132400241072988.post-13461067279487996432010-08-10T08:23:02.867-07:002010-08-10T08:23:02.867-07:00From the implmentation of the code that evaluates ...From the implmentation of the code that evaluates dialogues rules, I can suggest another necessary condition for rule naturalness. Evaluating a rule on a sequence of dialogue moves amounts checking quantified statements like this:<br /><br />* for every move, ...<br /><br />* there is a move such that ...<br /><br />I would suggest that an *unnatural* rule would be one that cannot be understood as quantifying over the sequence of all previous moves. Such a rule would make a "bare" atomic statement, like:<br /><br />* The player of move 3 is Opponent.<br /><br />* The stance of move 2 is Defend.<br /><br />* Move 6 refers to move 1.<br /><br />One might also rule out conjunctions and disjunctions of atomic statements like this.<br /><br />One consideration against this notion of naturalness comes in when considering initial moves of the game:<br /><br />* The player of move 0 is Proponent.<br /><br />* The statement of move 0 is a non-atomic formula.<br /><br />These are actually expressed as rules in Felscher's paper; perhaps, though, they're not actually rules like the particle or structural rules.<br /><br />In any case, this is offered only as a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. One can imagine rules that, when expressed as logical statements about the sequence of proceeding moves, are quantified statements, but which are unnatural.Jesse Alamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300729364134604326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5371132400241072988.post-58517022496536916752010-08-10T07:19:53.588-07:002010-08-10T07:19:53.588-07:00Another attempt to connect the particle rules to a...Another attempt to connect the particle rules to actual dialogical/debate experience is Witold Marciszewski, <a href="http://www.filozof.uni.lodz.pl/bulletin/pdf/12_4_6.pdf" rel="nofollow">"Logic and Experience in the Light of Dialogical Logic"</a>, <i>Bulletin of the Section of Logic</i> Volume 12/4 (1983), pp. 173-178<br />reedition 2008 [original edition, pp. 173-180].Sara L. Uckelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14716054827293611237noreply@blogger.com