Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 367–387

Independent Choices and the Interpretation of IF Logic

  • Theo M.V. Janssen
Article

Abstract

In this paper it is argued that Hintikka's game theoreticalsemantics for Independence Friendly logic does not formalize theintuitions about independent choices; it rather is aformalization of imperfect information. Furthermore it is shownthat the logic has several remarkable properties (e.g.,renaming of bound variables is not allowed). An alternativesemantics is proposed which formalizes intuitions aboutindependence.

branching quantifier game theoretical semantics Henkin quantifier IF logic imperfect information independent choices 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caicedo, X. and Krynicki, M., 1999, “Quantifiers for reasoning with imperfect information and Σ1 1 logic,” pp. 17–31 in Advances in Contemporary Logic and Computer Science. Proceedings 11th Brazilian Conference on Mathematical Logic 1996, W.A. Carnielli and I.M. d'Ottaviano, eds., Contemporary Mathematics, Vol. 235, Providence, RI: Americal Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  2. Cook, R. and Shapiro, S., 1998, “Hintikka's revolution ‘The Principles of Mathematics Revisited’,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49, 309–316.Google Scholar
  3. de Swart, H., Verhoeff, T., and Brands, R., 1997, “Hintikka's ,” Logique et Analyse 159, 281–289.Google Scholar
  4. Halpern, J., 1997, “On ambiguities in the interpretation of game trees,” Games and Economics Behavior 20, 66–96.Google Scholar
  5. Hintikka, J., 1974, “Quantifiers vs. quantification theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 5, 153–177.Google Scholar
  6. Hintikka, J., 1996, The Principles of Mathematics Revisited, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hintikka, J. and Sandu, G., 1997, “Game-theoretical semantics,” pp. 361–340 in Handbook of Logic and Language, J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hodges, W., 1997a, “Compositional semantics for a language of imperfect information,” Journal of the IGPL 5, 539–563.Google Scholar
  9. Hodges, W., 1997b, “Some strange quantifiers,” pp. 51–65 in Structures in Logic and Computer Science, J. Mycielski et al., eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1261, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Janssen, T., 1997, “A compositional semantics for the game-theoretical interpretation of logic,” pp. 181–185 in Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker, M. Stokhof, and Y. Venema, eds., ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Janssen, T., 1999, “IF logic and informational independence,” pp. 139–144 in Proceedings of the Twelfth Amsterdam Colloquium, P. Dekker, ed., ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam. INDEPENDENT CHOICES AND THE INTERPRETATION OF IF LOGIC 387Google Scholar
  12. Pietarinen, A., 2001, “Varieties of Ifing,” pp. 25–32 in Proceedings of the ESSLLI'01 Workshop on Logic and Games, G. Sandu and M. Pauly, eds., Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  13. Pietarinen, A., 2002, “Games logic plays. Informational independence in game theoretical semantics,” Ph.D. Thesis, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex (preliminary version).Google Scholar
  14. Sandu, G., 1993, “On the logic of informational independence and its applications,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 22, 26–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theo M.V. Janssen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations