tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post1799213716060836863..comments2022-12-08T08:31:08.950+00:00Comments on M-Phi: A precis of the dialogical account of deductionJeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-14092540863777860692016-03-14T20:52:54.543+00:002016-03-14T20:52:54.543+00:00I read this article and its tell me how write dial...I read this article and its tell me how write dialogue for summery and how to explain his moral thanks for share it <a href="http://www.programmingassignment.net/our-help-with-programming-assignments/delphi-programming-help-services/" rel="nofollow">delphi programming help</a> .Allen jeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312119051975318074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-50885992270782434532015-08-11T11:52:57.495+01:002015-08-11T11:52:57.495+01:00The issue you outline is of course the perennial i...The issue you outline is of course the perennial issue for genealogical projects that also seek to be explanatory (as you say yourself). I am convinced that the origins of something will fundamentally influence its nature, whatever that is (as I've argued in my paper on genealogy, which if memory does not fail me you are familiar with as well).<br />Specifically wrt proofs and dialogues, my slogan is 'a proof is and is not a dialogue'. This means that, properly speaking, proofs are no longer dialogues with two active participants (though I still want to emphasize that proof is always a discourse aimed at a putative audience), but since they retain some dialogical components, there is a sense in which it still make sense to view them as dialogues in a weak sense (but which I think would go beyond mere 'heuristic'.)Catarinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277956118114314573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-63652506536754989612015-08-11T11:48:36.976+01:002015-08-11T11:48:36.976+01:00Thanks, Cathy! And yes, I'm a big fan of this ...Thanks, Cathy! And yes, I'm a big fan of this paper by Mathieu as well.Catarinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277956118114314573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-87560794599765920002015-07-21T14:00:23.588+01:002015-07-21T14:00:23.588+01:00Here is a difficulty, the clarification of which, ...Here is a difficulty, the clarification of which, I think, will help us both.<br /><br />The dialogical account you outline can be understood in two ways: in one way, as an account of the <em>nature</em> of mathematical proof; in another, as an account of its <em>origins</em>. I think your exposition vacillates between these two viewpoints.<br /><br />As an account of origins, the account (though I suspect it is correct) would need to be proven in a more empirical way than you’ve attempted here. Furthermore, if granted, it isn’t clear how the result achieved is relevant, to an account of the contemporary practice. This latter problem seems to be a difficulty with genealogical accounts generally.<br /><br />As an account of the <em>nature </em>of mathematical proof, the account has a strong and a weak reading. The strong reading is to say that proof is literally a dialogue. The weak reading is one on which the concept of a dialogue provides a useful heuristic for thinking about proofs. The strong reading is false, and you appear to reject it in your remarks about the internalization of the skeptic in section 4. But the weak reading seems too weak: at most, it seems to say that agent and patient remain formally distinct even when materially identical – where Aristotle’s example of this was that of the physician operating upon himself, yours would be the mathematician playing the role of both the convincer and the convinced.Jacob Archambaulthttp://www.jacobarchambault.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-62001874531035061052015-07-21T05:47:36.143+01:002015-07-21T05:47:36.143+01:00Very astute post Catarina, thank you!
Of course G...Very astute post Catarina, thank you!<br /><br />Of course Game Semantics puts both dialogical players back 'on the field' (e.g. in existential quantification the Prover gets to choose the x and show that it satisfies P, in universal quantification the Skeptic gets to choose and the Prover has to show that it satisfies...etc). <br /><br />Matthieu Marion's paper "Why Play Logical Games?" gives a good philosophical overview of the state of the art here.Cathy Legghttp://waikato.academia.edu/CathyLeggnoreply@blogger.com