Advertisement

Advanced Dialogues: Strategy Level

  • Shahid Rahman
  • Zoe McConaughey
  • Ansten Klev
  • Nicolas Clerbout
Chapter
Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 18)

Abstract

The strategy standpoint is but a generalisation of the procedure which is implemented at the play level; it is a systematic exposition of all the relevant variants of a game—the relevancy of the variants being determined from the viewpoint of one of the two players. For a more intuitive approach of strategies and a step-by-step introduction of strategies as branching tables, see Sect.  3.5, p. 59. Such trees with branching tables are a good didactic approach to strategies, for the rules in building the tree are the same as those for building the plays: we simply use an algorithm yielding all the relevant plays for a player, keeping the table presentation we use for plays. The link from plays to strategies is thus clearly apparent. This method however is rather cumbersome and becomes unmanageable as soon as we deal with games involving more than two choices, the generated trees taking too much space. We will here present strategies from another perspective, that of extensive forms of dialogical games (more precisely from their core; see below, Sect. 5.3) rather than the table presentation; the extensive form presentation has this advantage over the table presentation that strategies can be linked more straightforwardly to demonstrations, which will be useful in Chap.  9. This link is crucial to the logical framework of dialogues, for the dialogical notion of validity is secured through the notion of a winning strategy for the Proponent. Many metalogical results in the dialogical framework are obtained by leaving the level of rules and plays to move to the level of strategies; winning strategies for a player are one of these metalogical results.

References

  1. Clerbout, N. (2014a). First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 785–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clerbout, N. (2014b). Étude sur quelques sémantiques dialogiques: Concepts fondamentaux et éléments de métathéorie. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Felscher, W. (1985). Dialogues as a foundation for intuitionistic logic. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, 3 (pp. 341–372). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Rahman, S., & Clerbout, N. (2015). Constructive type theory and the dialogical turn : A new start for the Erlanger Konstruktivismus. In J. Mittelstrass & C. von Bülow (Eds.), Dialogische Logik (pp. 91–148). Münster, Germany: Mentis.Google Scholar
  5. Rahman, S., Clerbout, N., & Keiff, L. (2009). On dialogues and natural deduction. In G. Primiero & S. Rahman (Eds.), Acts of knowledge: History, philosophy and logic: Essays dedicated to Göran Sundholm (pp. 301–336). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahid Rahman
    • 1
  • Zoe McConaughey
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ansten Klev
    • 4
  • Nicolas Clerbout
    • 5
  1. 1.Département de philosophie CNRS, UMR 8163 - STL - Savoirs Textes LangageUniv. LilleLilleFrance
  2. 2.Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8163 - STL - Savoirs Textes LangageLilleFrance
  3. 3.Département de philosophie & Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche en Science et TechnologieUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  4. 4.Institute of PhilosophyCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzechia
  5. 5.Universidad de ValparaísoValparaísoChile

Personalised recommendations