Dung's Argumentation is Essentially Equivalent to Classical Propositional Logic with the Peirce-Quine Dagger

نویسنده

  • Dov M. Gabbay
چکیده

In this paper we show that some versions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frames are equivalent to classical propositional logic. In fact, Dung’s attack relation is none other than the generalised Peirce– Quine dagger connective of classical logic which can generate the other connectives ¬,∧,∨,→ of classical logic. After establishing the above correspondence we offer variations of the Dung argumentation frames in parallel to variations of classical logic, such as resource logics, predicate logic, etc., etc., and create resource argumentation frames, predicate argumentation frames, etc., etc. We also offer the notion of logic proof as a geometrical walk along the nodes of a Dung network and thus we are able to offer a geometrical abstraction of the notion of inference based argumentation. Thus our paper is also a contribution to the question: “What is a logical system” in as much as it integrates logic with abstract argumentation networks. Mathematics Subject Classification (2010). 03B05, 03B22, 03B47, 03B99.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Truth Values and Connectives in Some Non-Classical Logics

The question as to whether the propositional logic of Heyting, which was a formalization of Brouwer's intuitionistic logic, is finitely many valued or not, was open for a while (the question was asked by Hahn). Kurt Gödel (1932) introduced an infinite decreasing chain of intermediate logics, which are known nowadays as Gödel logics, for showing that the intuitionistic logic is not finitely (man...

متن کامل

Five Answers on Pragmatism

Prof. Haack answers a series of questions on pragmatism, beginning with the origins of this tradition in the work of Peirce and James, its evolution in the work of Dewey and Mead, and its influence beyond the United States in, for example, the Italian pragmatists and the radical British pragmatist F. C. S. Schiller. Classical pragmatism, she observes, is a rich and varied tradition from which t...

متن کامل

Embedding classical in minimal implicational logic

Consider the problem which set V of propositional variables suffices for StabV `i A whenever `c A, where StabV := {¬¬P → P | P ∈ V }, and `c and `i denote derivability in classical and intuitionistic implicational logic, respectively. We give a direct proof that stability for the final propositional variable of the (implicational) formula A is sufficient; as a corollary one obtains Glivenko’s t...

متن کامل

"Minimal defence": a refinement of the preferred semantics for argumentation frameworks

Dung's abstract framework for argumenta-tion enables a study of the interactions between arguments based solely on an " attack " binary relation on the set of arguments. Various ways to solve conflicts between contradictory pieces of information have been proposed in the context of argumentation, non-monotonic reasoning or logic programming, and can be captured by appropriate semantics within D...

متن کامل

Argumentation and Propositional Logic

Argumentation has played a significant role in understanding and unifying under a common framework different forms of defeasible reasoning in Artificial Intelligence (AI). Argumentation is also close to the original inception of logic as a framework for formalizing human debate and dialogue. The purpose of this paper is to draw a formal connection between argumentation and classical reasoning, ...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Logica Universalis

دوره 5  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2011