Studia Logica

, Volume 104, Issue 6, pp 1119–1144 | Cite as

A Game Semantics for System P

  • J. MartiEmail author
  • R. Pinosio
Open Access


In this paper we introduce a game semantics for System P, one of the most studied axiomatic systems for non-monotonic reasoning, conditional logic and belief revision. We prove soundness and completeness of the game semantics with respect to the rules of System P, and show that an inference is valid with respect to the game semantics if and only if it is valid with respect to the standard order semantics of System P. Combining these two results leads to a new completeness proof for System P with respect to its order semantics. Our approach allows us to construct for every inference either a concrete proof of the inference from the rules in System P or a countermodel in the order semantics. Our results rely on the notion of a witnessing set for an inference, whose existence is a concise, necessary and sufficient condition for validity of an inferences in System P. We also introduce an infinitary variant of System P and use the game semantics to show its completeness for the restricted class of well-founded orders.


Non-monotonic consequence relations Conditional logic Belief revision Game semantics Dialogical logic 


  1. 1.
    Baltag A., Smets S.: Conditional doxastic models: a qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 165, 5–21 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boutilier C.: Conditional logics of normality: a modal approach. Artificial Intelligence 68(1), 87–154 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgess J.: Quick completeness proofs for some logics of conditionals. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 22(1), 76–84 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedman N., and J. Y. Halpern, On the complexity of conditional logics, in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference (KR’94), Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, 1994, pp. 202–213.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grove A.: Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17(2), 157–170 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hintikka, J., and G. Sandu, Game-theoretical semantics, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (ed.), Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd edn. Elsevier, New York, 2010, pp. 415–465.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Korte B., Lovász L., Schrader R.: Greedoids. Springer, New York (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kraus S., Lehmann D., Magidor M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44(1–2), 167–207 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehmann D., Magidor M.: What does a conditional knowledge base entail?. Artificial Intelligence 55(1), 1–60 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis D.: Counterfactuals. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford (1973)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lorenzen, P., and K. Lorenz, Dialogische Logik, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pozzato, G. L., Conditional and Preferential Logics: Proof Methods and Theorem Proving. Vol. 208. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahman, S., and T. Tulenheimo, From games to dialogues and back, in O. Majer, A.-V. Pietarinen, and T. Tulenheimo (ed.), Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy, Springer, New York, 2009, pp. 153–208.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Väänänen, J., Models and Games, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Veltman, F., Logics for conditionals, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ILLC, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations