Argumentation theory for mathematical argument
نویسندگان
چکیده
To adequately model mathematical arguments the analyst must be able to represent the mathematical objects under discussion and the relationships between them, as well as inferences drawn about these objects and relationships as the discourse unfolds. We introduce a framework with these properties, which has been applied to both mathematical dialogues and expository texts. The framework can recover salient elements of discourse at, and within, the sentence level, as well as the way mathematical content connects to form larger argumentative structures. We show how the framework might be used to support computational reasoning, and argue that it provides a more natural way to examine the process of proving theorems than do Lamport’s structured proofs.
منابع مشابه
Applying Recent Argumentation Methods to Some Ancient Examples of Plausible Reasoning
Short Abstract: Eleven characteristics of plausible reasoning are specified by analyzing key examples of it recognized as important in ancient Greek skeptical philosophy using an AI model called the Carneades Argumentation System. In this paper, it is shown that there is a significant connection between the ancient recognition of plausible reasoning by the Greek skeptics and Sophists and the re...
متن کاملA Reconstruction using the Carneades Argumentation Framework
The Pierson vs. Post case [1] has become an important benchmark in the field of AI and Law for computational models of argumentation. In [2], BenchCapon used Pierson vs. Post to motivate the use of values and value preferences in his theory-construction account of legal argument. And in a more a recent paper by Atkinson, Bench-Capon and McBurney [3], it was used to illustrate a formalization of...
متن کاملClassical Logic, Argumentation and Dialectic
A well studied instantiation of Dung’s abstract theory of argumentation yields argumentation-based characterisations of non-monotonic inference over possibly inconsistent sets of classical formulae. This provides for single-agent reasoning in terms of argument and counter-argument, and distributed non-monotonic reasoning in the form of dialogues between computational and or human agents. Howeve...
متن کاملBalanced Semantics for Argumentation based on Heider's Socio-Psychological Balance Theory
Argumentation, whether philosophical or formal and mathematical, is a discipline of interdisciplinary nature, per se. The recent works on the computational argumentation formalism and their foundations, however, have rested only on logic or logical account. In this paper, we reconsider Dung’s seminal argument acceptability notion in the context of Heider’s socio-psychological balance theory, wh...
متن کاملLaw as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument
Many lawyers lack a basic understanding of the structure and process of legal argumentation. Their limited understanding, which often leads to less than effective advocacy, stems from legal education's failure to make the structure and process of legal argument explicit and systematic. One approach to this problem is to explore the intrinsic relationship of law to rhetoric. Because law and rhet...
متن کاملA formal account of Socratic-style argumentation
In traditional mathematical models of argumentation an argument often consists of a chain of rules or reasons, beginning with premisses and leading to a conclusion that is endorsed by the party that put forward the argument. In informal reasoning, however, one often encounters a specific class of counterarguments that until now has received little attention in argumentation formalisms. The idea...
متن کامل