Advertisement

Some Games Logic Plays

  • Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 2)

Abstract

This paper studies the across-the-board character of game-theoretic semantics (GTS) in coping with various logics, most notably the family of IF (‘independence-friendly’) logics of Hintikka. I will show how both GTS and IF logics may be pushed into new directions by seizing the notion of a semantic game by means of the theory of games. I will conclude with some ensuing issues bordering on the interplay between C.S. Peirce’s pragmaticism and the science of pragmatics.

Keywords

Modal Logic Winning Strategy Game Rule Extensive Game Perfect Recall 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bradfield J. (2000). “Independence: Logic and Concurrency”, in P.G. Clote and H. Schwichtenberg, (eds) Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Computer Science Logic, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1862, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 247–261.Google Scholar
  2. Bradfield J. and Fröschle S. (2002). “Independence-Friendly Modal Logic and True Concurrency, Nordic Journal of Computing 9, 102–117.Google Scholar
  3. Fagin R., Halpern J.Y., Moses Y. and Vardi M.Y. (1995). Reasoning About Knowledge, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Grice P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Harsanyi J. (1967). “Games with Incomplete Information Played by ‘Bayesian’ Players. Part I: The Basic Model”, Management Science 14, 159–182.Google Scholar
  6. Hintikka J. (1973). Logic, Language Games and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. ____ (1987). “Language Understanding and Strategic Meaning”. Synthese 73:497–529.Google Scholar
  8. ____ (1996). The Principles of Mathematics Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. ____ (1997). “No Scope for Scope?”. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:515–544.Google Scholar
  10. ____ (2002). “Hyperclassical Logic (aka IF logic) and its Implications for Logical Theory”. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 8:404–423.Google Scholar
  11. ____ (2002). “Negation in Logic and in Natural Language”. Linguistics and Philosophy 25:585–600.Google Scholar
  12. Hintikka J. and Sandu G. (1997). “Game-Theoretical Semantics”, in J. van Benthem, and A. ter Meulen (eds), Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 361–410.Google Scholar
  13. Janasik T. and Sandu G. (2003). “Dynamic Game Semantics”, in Peregrin, J., (ed.), Meaning: The Dynamic Turn. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Janasik T., Pietarinen A.-V. and Sandu G. (2003). “Anaphora and Extensive Games”, in M. Andronis et al. (eds), Papers from the 38th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  15. Krynicki M. (1993). “Hierarchies of Partially Ordered Connectives and Quantifiers”, Mathematical Logic Quarterly 39:287–294.Google Scholar
  16. Lehrer E. (1988). “Repeated Games with Stationary Bounded Recall”, Journal of Economic Theory 46:130–144.Google Scholar
  17. von Neumann J. and Morgenstern O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Pietarinen A.-V. (2000). “Logic and Coherence in the Light of Competitive Games”, Logique et Analyse 43: 371–391.Google Scholar
  19. ____ (2001a). “Intentional Identity Revisited”, Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 6:144–188.Google Scholar
  20. ____ (2001b). “Most even Budged yet: Some Cases for Game-Theoretic Semantics in Natural Language”, in Theoretical Linguistics 27:20–54.Google Scholar
  21. ____ (2002). “Knowledge Constructions for Artificial Intelligence”, in Hacid, M.-S., Ras, Z.W., Zighed, D.A., Kodratoff, Y., (eds), Foundations of Intelligent Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2366. Springer, 303–311.Google Scholar
  22. ____ (2003a). “What do Epistemic Logic and Cognitive Science Have to do with Each Other?”, Cognitive Systems Research 4:169–190.Google Scholar
  23. ____ (2003b). “Peirce’s Game-Theoretic Ideas in Logic”, Semiotica, 144:33–47.Google Scholar
  24. ____ (2003c). “Peirce’s Theory of Communication and its Contemporary Relevance”, in Nyíri, Kristóf (ed.) Mobile Learning: Essays on Philosophy, Psychology and Education. Vienna: Passagen Verlag. 81–98.Google Scholar
  25. ____ (2003d). “Diagrammatic Logic and Game-Playing”, to appear in Malcolm, Grant (ed.) Multidisciplinary Studies of Visual Representations and Interpretations. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. ____ (2003e). “IF Logic and Incomplete Information”, to appear.Google Scholar
  27. ____ (2003f). “Moving Pictures of Thought”, to appear.Google Scholar
  28. ____ (2003g). “Dialogue Foundations and Informal Logic”, to appear.Google Scholar
  29. ____ (2003h). “Pragmatics from Peirce to Grice and Beyond”, to appear.Google Scholar
  30. Pietarinen A.-V. and Sandu G. (2003). “IF Logic, Game-Theoretical Semantics and new Prospects for the Philosophy of Science”, in Rahman, Shahid, Symons, John, Gabbay, Dov and van Bendegem, Jean-Paul, (eds), Logic, Epistemology and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Rasmusen E. (1994). Games and Information (first edition 1989). Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Sandu G. and Pietarinen A.-V. (2001). “Partiality and Games: Propositional Logic”, Logic Journal of the IGPL 9:107–127.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinki

Personalised recommendations